People v. Pizarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pizarro

20 A.D.2d 900, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087

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

DecidedApril 6, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 900 (People v. Pizarro) 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. Pizarro, 20 A.D.2d 900, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 21, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the first degree and carrying and using a dangerous weapon, and imposing concurrent sentences. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the voluntary and unsolicited admissions of guilt, three and one-half months after indictment, made by the defendant to the detective when defendant on his own initiative asked to see the detective and inquired whether it was possible to work out a “ deal ” did not constitute the interrogation by law enforcement officers which “ triggers the right to assistance of counsel ” or the right to be informed of defendant’s privilege against self incrimination. Under such circumstances, testimony of the conversation was properly admitted (cf. United States ex rel. Morrison v. La Vallee, 319 F. 2d 37). We are also of the opinion: (1) that the error of the trial court in refusing permission to defendant’s counsel to examine the Grand Jury testimony of several of the witnesses for the People was harm[901]*901less (People v. Velez, 18 A D 2d 1137); and (2) that the trial court properly charged that the statement of Raquel Pizarro went only to his credibility and was not affirmative evidence against the defendant. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, 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 County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 21, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the first degree and carrying and using a dangerous weapon, and imposing concurrent sentences. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the voluntary and unsolicited admissions of guilt, three and one-half months after indictment, made by the defendant to the detective when defendant on his own initiative asked to see the detective and inquired whether it was possible to work out a “ deal ” did not constitute the interrogation by law enforcement officers which “ triggers the right to assistance of counsel ” or the right to be informed of defendant’s privilege against self incrimination. Under such circumstances, testimony of the conversation was properly admitted (cf. United States ex rel. Morrison v. La Vallee, 319 F. 2d 37). We are also of the opinion: (1) that the error of the trial court in refusing permission to defendant’s counsel to examine the Grand Jury testimony of several of the witnesses for the People was harm[901]*901less (People v. Velez, 18 A D 2d 1137); and (2) that the trial court properly charged that the statement of Raquel Pizarro went only to his credibility and was not affirmative evidence against the defendant. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 900, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pizarro-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack