From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1990
168 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 24, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the statements allegedly made by the defendant were never introduced at trial, his contention that they were the product of an arrest made without probable cause is academic for purposes of this appeal (see, People v. Smith, 160 A.D.2d 472; People v. Wilson, 131 A.D.2d 526).

Additionally, we find that the defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the apartment of his in-laws in which the murder weapon was found, as he only occasionally stayed in that apartment and did not have his own room there (see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Bostick, 151 A.D.2d 768; People v. McGaha, 144 A.D.2d 388; People v. Glenn, 140 A.D.2d 623). In any event, the police relied in good faith upon the apparent authority of a resident of the apartment who gave consent to the search (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, cert. denied 454 U.S. 854; People v. Bostick, supra; People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638).

Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding a previous altercation between the defendant and the victim, since this evidence was properly admissible to show motive (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Moore, 122 A.D.2d 232). Any claim that the court should have given a limiting instruction with respect to this evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05).

Finally, we reject the defendant's assertion that the trial court unfairly marshaled the evidence during its charge. The court's failure to refer to all of the defendant's contentions did not deprive him of a fair trial (see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667). In this regard, we note that the trial was of brief duration and involved relatively simple issues, and that the court informed the jury that it had no opinion in the case (see, People v. Glenn, 160 A.D.2d 813; People v. Gray, 144 A.D.2d 483). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1990
168 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Adames

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SILO ADAMES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 24, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
563 N.Y.S.2d 462

Citing Cases

People v. Segna

The majority of the "apparent authority" cases which cite Adams (supra) involve situations where the person…

People v. Ryan

The defendant's claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on temporary possession of…