From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ransdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 8, 1998
254 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 8, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Contrary to defendant's claim, the police reasonably concluded from all the circumstances that the victim's exclamation "That's him!", made while pointing to defendant, was based on personal knowledge ( see, People v. Wearing, 246 A.D.2d 404, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 946). The court did not constructively amend the indictment by charging that the People needed to prove only that defendant had entered the building, rather than the specific apartment where the victim resided where the court's burglary charge did not vary from the indictment ( People v. Perry, 226 A.D.2d 282, lv denied, 88 N.Y.2d 940; People v. James, 204 A.D.2d 180, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 827). We do not read the People's voluntary disclosure form as limiting the theory of prosecution ( see, People v. Medina, 233 A.D.2d 927, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 926).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ransdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 8, 1998
254 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Ransdell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER RANSDELL…

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

Date published: Oct 8, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 202

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

The police had probable cause to arrest defendant when, within minutes, an eyewitness to the robbery…

People v. Parson

The officer testified that this witness, and a child who was a passenger in the witness's car, each displayed…