People v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gold

57 A.D.2d 575, 393 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551

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

DecidedApril 11, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 575 (People v. Gold) 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. Gold, 57 A.D.2d 575, 393 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 6, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At the time of his arrest defendant was taken to the police station house for booking. Prior to being given his Miranda warnings, defendant was told that he was being booked for criminal possession of six stolen boxes of men’s slacks. Defendant replied: "How can you charge me with the six boxes, I only had two?” That statement was properly suppressed prior to the trial. At the trial, although the defendant testified, the prosecutor failed to inquire of him whether he had made such a statement. The use of the statement, at that time, would have been proper to attack the credibility of the witness, even though the statement itself could not be received as an admission of the crime (see People v Johnson, 27 NY2d 119). Having failed to so question the defendant, the prosecutor then recalled the police officer and elicited the statement on rebuttal. This was error. By using the police officer to affirmatively testify that the defendant did make the statement, the statement was offered as an admission. The statement, made after his arrest but prior to being read his Miranda warnings, could not be used in this manner. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 6, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At the time of his arrest defendant was taken to the police station house for booking. Prior to being given his Miranda warnings, defendant was told that he was being booked for criminal possession of six stolen boxes of men’s slacks. Defendant replied: "How can you charge me with the six boxes, I only had two?” That statement was properly suppressed prior to the trial. At the trial, although the defendant testified, the prosecutor failed to inquire of him whether he had made such a statement. The use of the statement, at that time, would have been proper to attack the credibility of the witness, even though the statement itself could not be received as an admission of the crime (see People v Johnson, 27 NY2d 119). Having failed to so question the defendant, the prosecutor then recalled the police officer and elicited the statement on rebuttal. This was error. By using the police officer to affirmatively testify that the defendant did make the statement, the statement was offered as an admission. The statement, made after his arrest but prior to being read his Miranda warnings, could not be used in this manner. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 575, 393 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gold-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack