People v. Rodriquez
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Citation | 354 N.E.2d 850,387 N.Y.S.2d 110,39 N.Y.2d 976 |
| Parties | , 354 N.E.2d 850 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Efrain RODRIQUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harvey L. Greenberg, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Alan D. Rubinstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Order of the Appellate Division, 48 A.D.2d 691, 367 N.Y.S.2d 840, affirmed.
The identity, description and address of the civilian who was with the undercover police officer when defendant first sold the narcotics was disclosed before trial in the People's bill of particulars. The civilian was not a confidential or co-operating informant but was himself a police suspect. Thus, the People were under no obligation to produce him at trial.
Defendant's remarks made in the course of the criminal transaction were not historical narrative; they were instead part of the corpus delicti. Hence, they need not have been disclosed in the bill of particulars (CPL 200.90, subd. 3).
Since no order of mistrial had been entered and the jury had not been discharged, the trial court's purported declaration of a mistrial obviously was a statement of intention rather than a completed act, despite its declarative form. It was rescinded almost immediately. Hence, there is no basis for the assertion of double jeopardy.
Defendant was not entitled to preinterrogation warnings before being asked pedigree information in an interview in connection with his possible release on his own recognizance (cf. People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 309, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699). In any event, even if the taking of the information without first having given the warnings violated defendant's constitutional rights, its use to impeach defendant's credibility on cross-examination was permissible (People v. Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175, 177, 303 N.Y.S.2d 71, 250 N.E.2d 349, affd. 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1; People v. Kulis, 18 N.Y.2d 318, 323, 274 N.Y.S.2d 873, 221 N.E.2d 541).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wortham
...to Miranda for pedigree questions (see Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d at 292, 624 N.Y.S.2d 95, 648 N.E.2d 471 ; People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 978, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850 [1976] ; People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 309, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699 [1970] ). We explored the genesis and ......
-
People v. DeFreitas
...the Huntley hearing be reopened to determine the voluntariness of defendant's statement as to his age (see, People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 978, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850), considering also that the hearing court had found the inculpatory statement voluntary and The appellant com......
-
People v. Brown
...by the People on both their direct and rebuttal cases (see People v. Rodriquez, , 48 A.D.2d 691, 367 N.Y.S.2d 840 affd. 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850). This is especially true since a fair amount of the same information which might be sought to be elicited from the ROR she......
-
People v. Johnson
...information; both serve "housekeeping" purposes and need not be proceeded by Miranda warnings (see, e.g. People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 978, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850; People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 309, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699). The fact that the question was asked m......