People v. Denard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Denard

148 A.D.2d 957, 539 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 10, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 957 (People v. Denard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Denard, 148 A.D.2d 957, 539 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence concerning his refusal to give a handwriting exemplar to police. He argues that such evidence is violative of the rules precluding use of defendant’s postarrest silence (see, Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610; People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454). Defendant’s contention has no merit. A demand that a defendant provide corporeal evidence does not invoke his right against self-incrimination because such evidence has no testimonial or communicative aspect (see, South Dakota v Neville, 459 US 553, 559-561; Schmerber v California, 384 US 757). Since a refusal to submit to a demand for such evidence “is a physical act rather them a communication” (South Dakota v Neville, supra, at 560), refusal does not involve rules forbidding the use of defendant’s silence.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is unpreserved and lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence concerning his refusal to give a handwriting exemplar to police. He argues that such evidence is violative of the rules precluding use of defendant’s postarrest silence (see, Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610; People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454). Defendant’s contention has no merit. A demand that a defendant provide corporeal evidence does not invoke his right against self-incrimination because such evidence has no testimonial or communicative aspect (see, South Dakota v Neville, 459 US 553, 559-561; Schmerber v California, 384 US 757). Since a refusal to submit to a demand for such evidence “is a physical act rather them a communication” (South Dakota v Neville, supra, at 560), refusal does not involve rules forbidding the use of defendant’s silence.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is unpreserved and lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 957, 539 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-denard-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack