LEGRES/LEGWRIT 2013 2014

Gonzales, Jonn Kenneth Laurence A. Sept. 20, 2013

2013400023 1 S

HARRIS v. NEW YORK
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 206.
Argued December 17, 1970
Decided February 24, 1971

Facts: Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief
because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona

The defendant, petitioner herein, was charged with selling heroin to an undercover
police officer on two occasions. During the hearing, the police officer took the
stand and testified about the details of the sale. The testimony was then verified by
a second officer, and the substance sold by the defendant was confirmed to be a
heroin by a third officer.

The defendant took the stand, he denied making one of the sales then later admitted
commencing the second sale and that the substance was merely a baking powder
intended to defraud the purchaser.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the statements attributed to petitioner by the
prosecution could be considered only in passing on petitioner's credibility and not
as evidence of guilt.



Issue: Whether or not the prosecution improperly allowed the use of the statements
to impeach Petitioners testimony since the statements were made without Miranda
warnings?

Held: The Court held that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by
use of his earlier conflicting statements.
Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to
do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit
perjury. Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to
speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize
the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. Had inconsistent
statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be
contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-
examination and impeachment.