People v. Carey

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Asbridge

    555 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 15 times
    Setting forth the majority view among federal courts

    Several courts in more recent cases have ruled admission of testimony that a defendant remained silent after being given Miranda warnings was harmless error. See, e.g., United States v. Massuet, 851 F.2d 111 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied sub nom., Trujillo v. United States, 488 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 785, 102 L.Ed.2d 776 (1989); Crawford v. State, 494 So.2d 311 (Fla.Ct.App. 1986); People v. Hairston, 86 Ill. App.3d 295, 42 Ill.Dec. 4, 408 N.E.2d 382 (1980); State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671, 887 P.2d 88 (1994); People v. Carey, 156 A.D.2d 983, 549 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1989). Here, the right to speak to an attorney was invoked rather than the right to remain silent.

  2. People v. Zappulla [2d Dept 2001

    282 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Zappulla, 282 A.D.2d 696, 698, 724 N.Y.S.2d 433 (2d Dept.2001), the Second Department found a period of twenty-four hours between a defendant's two statements to be unreasonable, but there the court held that "under the circumstances of this case," that gap was unreasonable because the "defendant spent much of March 17, 1998, at the hospital being treated for injuries sustained in a car accident on the way to central booking and therefore, was not in a continuous custodial environment.

    In addition, the defendant admitted to an inmate, who was incarcerated with the defendant pending trial, that when he choked Scarpati "blood came out". In light of this overwhelming evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error of admitting the defendant's statement into evidence might have contributed to his conviction (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v. Nisbett, 225 A.D.2d 801, 802; People v. Carey, 156 A.D.2d 983). Accordingly the judgments are affirmed.