Opinion
March 10, 1989
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Connell, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence concerning his refusal to give a handwriting exemplar to police. He argues that such evidence is violative of the rules precluding use of defendant's postarrest silence (see, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610; People v Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454). Defendant's contention has no merit. A demand that a defendant provide corporeal evidence does not invoke his right against self-incrimination because such evidence has no testimonial or communicative aspect (see, South Dakota v Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 559-561; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757). Since a refusal to submit to a demand for such evidence "is a physical act rather than a communication" (South Dakota v Neville, supra, at 560), refusal does not involve rules forbidding the use of defendant's silence.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is unpreserved and lacking in merit.