Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Rodriquez

People v. Rodriquez

354 N.E.2d 850, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2916
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 6, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 354 N.E.2d 850 (People v. Rodriquez) 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. Rodriquez, 354 N.E.2d 850, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2916 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division affirmed.

The identity, description and address of the civilian who was with the undercover police officer when defendant first sold the narcotics was disclosed before trial in the People’s bill of particulars. The civilian was not a confidential or co-operating informant but was himself a police suspect. Thus, the People were under no obligation to produce him at trial.

Defendant’s remarks made in the course of the criminal transaction were not historical narrative; they were instead [978]*978part of the corpus delicti. Hence, they need not have been disclosed in the bill of particulars (CPL 200.90, subd 3).

Since no order of mistrial had been entered and the jury had not been discharged, the trial court’s purported declaration of a mistrial obviously was a statement of intention rather than a completed act, despite its declarative form. It was rescinded almost immediately. Hence, there is no basis for the assertion of double jeopardy.

Defendant was not entitled to preinterrogation warnings before being asked pedigree information in an interview in connection with his possible release on his own recognizance (cf. People v Rivera, 26 NY2d 304, 309). In any event, even if the taking of the information without first having given the warnings violated defendant’s constitutional rights, its use to impeach defendant’s credibility on cross-examination was permissible (People v Harris, 25 NY2d 175, 177, affd 401 US 222; People v Kulis, 18 NY2d 318, 323).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

Gorman v. Rice
106 A.D.3d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Brown
304 A.D.2d 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Travis S.
180 Misc. 2d 234 (NYC Family Court, 1999)
People v. Deacon
226 A.D.2d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. DeFreitas
213 A.D.2d 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Rodney
648 N.E.2d 471 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Platz
163 Misc. 2d 159 (New York County Courts, 1994)
People v. Rodney
203 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Almonte
192 A.D.2d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Jacobo
154 Misc. 2d 540 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. Vaccarella
177 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Vargas
161 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Hester
161 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Stewart
160 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. White
149 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Miller
123 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Padron
118 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Mondon
129 Misc. 2d 13 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
People v. Speller
121 Misc. 2d 354 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Johnson
86 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
354 N.E.2d 850, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriquez-ny-1976.