People v. Santiago
| Decision Date | 21 April 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose SANTIAGO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph J. Ortego, Wantagh, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Shulamit Rosenblum and Seth M. Lieberman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, GIBBONS and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered March 14, 1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
On this record, we cannot say, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, that any rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crimes of which the defendant stands convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560).
The defendant claims that impermissible use was made of his postarrest silence since the prosecutor specifically cross-examined him with respect to information he did not provide to the police upon his arrest, but which he testified to at trial (see, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91; People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933). Contrary to the People's contention, this claim has been preserved for our review since defense counsel specifically objected on three occasions to this particular line of questioning and his objections were overruled (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).
The principle enunciated in People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933, supra , that a defendant's trial testimony may not be impeached by the use of his pretrial silence, was held inapplicable when a defendant voluntarily breaks his silence on arrest and "proceeds to narrate the essential facts of his involvement in the crime" (see, People v. Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 676, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409 N.E.2d 858, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475; see also, People v. Mayers, 100 A.D.2d 558, 473 N.Y.S.2d 263; People v. Davis, 92 A.D.2d 177, 460 N.Y.S.2d 289, affd 61 N.Y.2d 202, 473 N.Y.S.2d 146, 461 N.E.2d 283). However, the defendant's mere denial of his involvement in the shooting upon arrest was not tantamount to a waiver of his right to remain silent so as to render the Conyers proscription inapplicable. Indeed, the Court of Appeals recognized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tucker
...shooting was not tantamount to a waiver of the right to remain silent” that he had expressly invoked moments before ( People v. Santiago, 119 A.D.2d 775, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402; see People v. Torres, 111 A.D.2d 885, 886, 490 N.Y.S.2d 793; cf. People v. Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409......
-
People v. McArthur
...not tantamount to a waiver of his right to remain silent so as to render the Conyers proscription inapplicable” ( People v. Santiago, 119 A.D.2d 775, 776, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402). “Indeed, as the Court of Appeals has acknowledged, ‘the State is denied the right to draw adverse inferences from the......
-
People v. Flores
...essential facts of his involvement in the crime (see People v. Theodore, 113 A.D.3d 703, 704, 978 N.Y.S.2d 357 ; People v. Santiago, 119 A.D.2d 775, 776, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402 ; People v. Torres, 111 A.D.2d 885, 886, 490 N.Y.S.2d 793 ). The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial ......
-
People v. Slack
...may be drawn against the defendant by reason of his silence or his failure to respond to the police officer" (see, People v. Santiago, 119 A.D.2d 775, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 672, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 496 N.E.2d 696; People v. Terry, 109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d Finally, the de......