People v. Hill

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Hill

23 N.E.3d 1021, 24 N.Y.3d 1007

DecidedNovember 18, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.E.3d 1021 (People v. Hill) 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. Hill, 23 N.E.3d 1021, 24 N.Y.3d 1007 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Absent “unusual circumstances,” evidence of a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest is generally inadmissible under common-law evidentiary principles (People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454, 459 [1981]). And the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings has been deemed impermissible as a matter of due process (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610, 619 [1976]). Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that defendant did not open the door to evidence of his post -Miranda silence and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in permitting its introduction at trial. Nor can the error be viewed as harmless in this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered, 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 reversed and a new trial ordered.

Absent “unusual circumstances,” evidence of a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest is generally inadmissible under common-law evidentiary principles (People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454, 459 [1981]). And the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings has been deemed impermissible as a matter of due process (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610, 619 [1976]). Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that defendant did not open the door to evidence of his post -Miranda silence and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in permitting its introduction at trial. Nor can the error be viewed as harmless in this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.E.3d 1021, 24 N.Y.3d 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-ny-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack