67 N.Y.2d at 1007 Forfeiture of affirmative defense by pleading guilty7 citing casesstatement made in noncustodial setting prior to Miranda warnings does not taint a subsequent custodial statement made after Miranda warnings
- People v. LaPierre, 189 A.D.3d 1813 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).publishedLikewise, to the extent that defendant's motion was based upon the claim that the charged crimes were the product of coercion ( see Penal Law § 40.00 [1]), he forfeited that potential affirmative defense by pleading guilty and foregoing a…
- People v. Horn, 186 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).publishedDuress is an affirmative defense that does not negate any of the elements that the People are required to prove in the first instance, such as intent ( see § 40.00; People v Bastidas , 67 NY2d 1006, 1007 [1986], rearg denied 68 NY2d 907 [1…
- People v. Davis, 106 A.D.3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2013).published People v Bastidas, 67 NY2d 1006, 1007 [1986]; People v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d 431, 433 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 964 [2008]; People v Vientos, 164 AD2d 122, 127 [1st Dept 1990], affd 79 NY2d 771 [1991]; People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187 [2d…
- People v. Hammond, 84 A.D.3d 1726 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011).publishedAlthough the People are incorrect that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Bastidas, 67 NY2d 1006, 1007 [1986], rearg denied 68 NY2d 907 [1986]), we nevertheless co…
- People v. Devers, 82 A.D.3d 1261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedIn any event, his contention is without merit, as the County Court properly instructed the jury that the burden of proving duress, as with any affirmative defense, is on the defendant, who must do so by a preponderance of the evidence (see…
- People v. Murphy, 178 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991).published(statement made in noncustodial setting prior to Miranda warnings does not taint a subsequent custodial statement made after Miranda warnings)
Other citing cases
- Fink v. Bennett, 514 F. Supp. 2d 383 (N.D.N.Y. 2007).published
- People v. Rich, 137 Misc. 2d 474 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).published
v.
Pedro Bastidas, Also Known as Pedro Criollo
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Notwithstanding that defendant’s earlier statement was given without Miranda warnings, his later statement made after such warnings cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been given in violation of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. This follows from the findings of the Trial Judge, supported by the record and undisturbed by the Appellate Division, and, therefore, beyond our power of review, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the detective to the station house; that he was left unattended in the detective’s office from 8:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. while his earlier statement was being investigated; that he was given food, drink and, when he complained of the cold, a sweater; that he was permitted contact with a family member; and that when he testified he made no claim that he had been told he could not leave (People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826; People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882; cf. People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112).
Moreover, duress, like entrapment and extreme emotional disturbance, "does not serve to negate any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict” (Patterson v New York, 432 US 197, 207, affg People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288). It is rather a separate issue in disproof of intent, the State being required in the first instance to prove the necessary intent. Penal Law § 40.00, which denominates duress an affirmative defense, is, therefore, constitutional (People v Patterson, supra; People v Laietta, 30 NY2d 68, 75).
The other issues raised by defendant are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.
[*1008] Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Titone taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.