From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crichton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 5, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant's contention that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the testimony at trial of a police officer to the effect that the defendant refused to give a videotaped statement after giving both oral and written statements admitting to the crime (see, People v. Hendricks, 222 A.D.2d 74).

The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Crichton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Crichton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES CRICHTON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

People v. Dominique

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the testimony of Moise during summation…