From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Charlton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1997
239 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 1, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.).


The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel's request for an adjournment at the close of the People's case during the Mapp hearing, in order to subpoena a police officer for the defense case. Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to subpoena that officer prior to the hearing, and also failed to demonstrate the materiality of that officer's testimony at the hearing ( see, People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476).

Defendant's claim regarding the prejudicial impact of the court's Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for review ( see, People v. Medina, 171 A.D.2d 559, Iv denied 78 N.Y.2d 924), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court, in this nonjury trial, providently exercised its discretion and balanced the relevant factors ( People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Charlton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1997
239 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Charlton

Case Details

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

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

Date published: May 1, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 552

Citing Cases

People v. Reed

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's contentions concerning Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling…

People v. Degondea

Further, the record is silent as to any discussion between counsel and the potential witness as to the timing…