THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JOHN HENDRICKS, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 956, 687 N.E.2d 1328, 665 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1997).
October 16, 1997
2 No. 191
(97 NY Int. 0153)
Decided October 16, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Ronald L. Kuby, for appellant.
John F. McGlynn, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
During the People's direct case, the prosecutor elicited police
testimony that defendant was given his Miranda warnings, acknowledged
receipt of the warnings and agreed in writing towaive his rights. The
officer further testified that, after obtaining the waiver, he
informed defendant that he would like to obtain a written statement
whereupon defendant responded, "I'll talk to you but I am not signing
anything else." Defendant then gave an oral statement.
In these circumstances, the officer's testimony did not constitute an
impermissible comment on defendant's invocation of his right to
silence. Defendant did not invoke his right to silence. On the
contrary he waived it, and after indicating that he would rather not
put his statement in writing, defendant gave an oral statement.
Defendant's preference for making his statement orally rather than in
writing was not, in this context, an indication that he wanted to cut
off further inquiry which would have invoked his right to silence (
cf., People v Von Werne, 41 NY2d 584, 587 588 (defendant who
refused to talk further invoked his right to remain silent)).
Defendant's reliance on Connecticut v Barrett (479 US 523)is
misplaced as defendant's refusal to give a written statement did not
implicate his right to counsel ( cf., Connecticut v Barrett, supra,
(where defendant agreed to talk but refused to make a written
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JOHN HENDRICKS, APPELLANT.
During the People's direct case, the prosecutor elicited police testimony that defendant was
the officer's testimony did not constitute an impermissible comment on defendant's invocation
Defendant did not invoke his right to silence.
On the contrary he waived it, and after indicating that he would rather not put his statement
Defendant's reliance on Connecticut v Barrett is misplaced as defendant's refusal to give a
The officer's testimonyregarding the circumstances in which defendant made the oral statement
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
