Legal Opinion

People v. Dinkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 12, 1979PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bloom, J.

The factual background of this case is fully set forth in the opinion of my brother Fein. I agree that the cross-examination of defendant on his failure to register a complaint against Kurt, particularly in light of the emphasis given to the matter by the question put by the court, deprived defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights. It was, therefore, error so egregious as to mandate reversal. The cross-examination of his brother on the same subject, although improper, was error to a lesser degree and could have been cured by appropriate instruction (see concurring…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. People v. IngleNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. People v. HorowitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
  4. People v. BluittNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. People v. BurgosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. DinkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. People v. DinkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API