People v. Dolce
This text of 184 N.E. 690 (People v. Dolce) 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.
Opinion
Evidence of appellant’s silence while under arrest when incriminating statements were made in his presence by his co-defendant Russo in reply to a police officer was received in reliance on Kelley v. People (55 N. Y. 565, 572-574) as admissions of the truth of such statements sufficient to establish appellant’s guilty participation in the conspiracy.
While the objection was not directed specifically to this point, the exception to the ruling under which the statements were received was sufficient to raise the question.
In People v. Rutigliano (261 N. Y. 103) we have held that a person in custody on a charge of crime jointly with another person is not called upon to contradict statements prejudicial to him, made in his presence by the other person, in answer to inquiries made by an officer; and that such statements, though not contradicted by him, are not admissible in evidence against him.
This evidence was relied on to secure a conviction and its reception was material error.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
184 N.E. 690, 261 N.Y. 108, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dolce-ny-1933.