New York Court of Appeals, 1981

People v. De Pasquale

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 6, 1981

54 N.Y.2d 693; 442 N.Y.S.2d 973; 426 N.E.2d 467; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2629

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Busiello v. McGinnis (District Court, E.D. New York 2002)
People v. McCann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Francis (New York Supreme Court 1991)
People v. Warren (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Betancourt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Betancourt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Escamilla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re Carlos V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Doe (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Liriano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Alaire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Knapp (New York County Courts 1988)
People v. Wiesner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Fappiano (New York Supreme Court 1987)
People v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Dellarocco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The sole ground on which defendant maintains that his confession should have been suppressed is that James Turner, defendant’s brother-in-law and a New York City police officer in another precinct, urged him to speak with the authorities after he had invoked his right to remain *695silent. In defendant’s view, the record shows that the police induced or actively aided Turner’s conduct and thus failed to observe defendant’s decision not to speak. The affirmed findings, however, are to the contrary. On this record, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent was not “scrupulously honored” (Michigan v Mosley, 423 US 96, 104).

Nor was there error in the trial court’s ruling permitting cross-examination of defendant concerning uncharged crimes on the basis of information provided by the victim’s brother. Questioning about uncharged crimes is permissible in the exercise of the court’s discretion so long as there is a good faith basis in fact for the inquiry (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 200-202). Here, the trial court was satisfied with the foundation for the prosecutor’s questions and nothing in the record suggests that the basis for the inquiry was inadequate as a matter of law or that the trial court abused its discretion.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.