People v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riley

65 A.D.2d 608, 409 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13291

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 608 (People v. Riley) 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. Riley, 65 A.D.2d 608, 409 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 27, 1975, convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At trial the defendant took the stand and for the first time raised the affirmative defense of entrapment. The record indicates that, if believed, the defendant’s testimony established the requisite elements of entrapment. On cross-examination, the prosecution inquired as to why the defendant had not previously told his story to the police. This type of inquiry into a defendant’s postarrest silence is a serious violation of the defendant’s due process rights and constitutes reversible error (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Titone, 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, Nassau County, rendered October 27, 1975, convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At trial the defendant took the stand and for the first time raised the affirmative defense of entrapment. The record indicates that, if believed, the defendant’s testimony established the requisite elements of entrapment. On cross-examination, the prosecution inquired as to why the defendant had not previously told his story to the police. This type of inquiry into a defendant’s postarrest silence is a serious violation of the defendant’s due process rights and constitutes reversible error (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 608, 409 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riley-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack