People v. Bastidas

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Bastidas

494 N.E.2d 446, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18627

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 494 N.E.2d 446 (People v. Bastidas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bastidas, 494 N.E.2d 446, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18627 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Notwithstanding that defendant’s earlier statement was given without Miranda warnings, his later statement made after such warnings cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been given in violation of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. This follows from the findings of the Trial Judge, supported by the record and undisturbed by the Appellate Division, and, therefore, beyond our power of review, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the detective to the station house; that he was left unattended in the detective’s office from 8:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. while his earlier statement was being investigated; that he was given food, drink and, when he complained of the cold, a sweater; that he was permitted contact with a family member; and that when he testified he made no claim that he had been told he could not leave (People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826; People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882; cf. People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112).

Moreover, duress, like entrapment and extreme emotional disturbance, "does not serve to negate any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict” (Patterson v New York, 432 US 197, 207, affg People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288). It is rather a separate issue in disproof of intent, the State being required in the first instance to prove the necessary intent. Penal Law § 40.00, which denominates duress an affirmative defense, is, therefore, constitutional (People v Patterson, supra; People v Laietta, 30 NY2d 68, 75).

The other issues raised by defendant are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

[1008]*1008Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Notwithstanding that defendant’s earlier statement was given without Miranda warnings, his later statement made after such warnings cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been given in violation of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. This follows from the findings of the Trial Judge, supported by the record and undisturbed by the Appellate Division, and, therefore, beyond our power of review, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the detective to the station house; that he was left unattended in the detective’s office from 8:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. while his earlier statement was being investigated; that he was given food, drink and, when he complained of the cold, a sweater; that he was permitted contact with a family member; and that when he testified he made no claim that he had been told he could not leave (People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826; People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882; cf. People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112).

Moreover, duress, like entrapment and extreme emotional disturbance, "does not serve to negate any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict” (Patterson v New York, 432 US 197, 207, affg People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288). It is rather a separate issue in disproof of intent, the State being required in the first instance to prove the necessary intent. Penal Law § 40.00, which denominates duress an affirmative defense, is, therefore, constitutional (People v Patterson, supra; People v Laietta, 30 NY2d 68, 75).

The other issues raised by defendant are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

[1008]*1008Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 N.E.2d 446, 67 N.Y.2d 1006, 503 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bastidas-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack