From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fridman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 1988
71 N.Y.2d 845 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued February 9, 1988

Decided March 24, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Dennis Edwards, Jr., J.

Mark F. Pomerantz, David T. Grudberg and Herald Price Fahringer for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Ann M. Donnelly and Norman Barclay of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In the context of the conversation between the defendant and the police, the defendant's suggestions that he or the police might want to consult with his attorney with respect to certain matters cannot be said to constitute an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel. In addition, we note that the defendant was not in custody, was in his own office and continued the discussion with the police as if the suggestions had never been made.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, HANCOCK, JR., BELLACOSA and DILLON concur.

Designated pursuant to N Y Constitution, article VI, § 2.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Fridman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 1988
71 N.Y.2d 845 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Fridman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES FRIDMAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 24, 1988

Citations

71 N.Y.2d 845 (N.Y. 1988)
527 N.Y.S.2d 758
522 N.E.2d 1056

Citing Cases

State v. Oxley

Defendant did not make this statement to a police officer or prosecutor, did not follow up on his alleged…

People v. Wacht

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his statement should have been suppressed. The record…