People v. Smith

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hernandez

    291 A.D.2d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    Second, defendant was not prejudiced by references to uncharged crimes and illicit drug activity. The victim was alleged to have robbed defendant and other local drug dealers, so the evidence defendant now objects to was properly elicited for the purpose of demonstrating motive and criminal intent (People v. Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, 598, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008). Motion seeking leave to file a pro se supplemental brief granted.

  2. People v. Andino

    256 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 13 times

    rrest of defendant, based upon probable cause, in the doorway of her apartment, did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless arrests inside a suspect's home ( United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42; People v. Rosario, 179 A.D.2d 442, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 1053). Further, the police properly conducted a limited and swift security check of the apartment, immediately following defendant's lawful arrest, to determine if there were any individuals present who might destroy evidence or pose a threat to the officers ( Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325; United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324, 335, cert denied 449 U.S. 834). Since the officers were aware that prerecorded buy money was utilized in the reported drug transaction that was completed only minutes before, and since nothing was recovered from defendant's person, the officers justifiably seized a quantity of currency observed in plain view on a counter approximately five feet from where defendant was arrested ( see, People v. Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, 598, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008), the incriminating nature of that currency being readily apparent ( see, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137). The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in discharging an absent sitting juror and replacing him with an alternate juror, following inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the juror's absence that warranted a finding that the juror was no longer available for continued service ( People v. Hastings, 192 A.D.2d 476, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 754). Although the jurors were directed to be in court by 9:30 A.M. and to telephone if they were going to be late, the court, having received no call from the juror in question, waited until 12:30 P.M. before substituting an alternate juror, and then only after an unsuccessful attempt by court officers to locate the juror at the address he provided to the jury clerk, as well as unsuccessful attempts to contact the juror by telephone at the juror's reported home and business telephone numbers.

  3. People v. Griffis

    219 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

    Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the shotgun found in plain view by the police during a protective sweep of the motel room from which defendant had emerged (see, People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008; People v Febus, 157 A.D.2d 380, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 835). Because the seizure of the shotgun was proper, defendant's statements made subsequent to the seizure were not tainted by any illegality.

  4. People v. Chalk

    199 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    We disagree. It is well established that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by admission of nontestifying codefendants' confessions when, as here, the confessions are redacted to eliminate any facial or inferential reference to defendant and are accompanied by proper limiting instructions to the jury that it cannot use the confession against any of the other codefendants (see, Richardson v Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211; People v Neal, 181 A.D.2d 584, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1052; People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008; People v Borgos, 168 A.D.2d 628, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 958; People v Johnson, 162 A.D.2d 644, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 996; People v Sutter, 162 A.D.2d 644, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 897; People v Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187, affd 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824). Nor do we perceive any abuse of discretion in County Court's decision to deny defendant's motion for a severance (see, People v Pugh, 194 A.D.2d 863; People v Jean-Pierre, 169 A.D.2d 932, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 962; see generally, People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174).

  5. People v. Johnson

    193 A.D.2d 35 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    Yet, the Supreme Court, and now the dissent, resolve the issue in his favor. The record, however, supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that contrary to the defendant's contention, the detectives properly entered the apartment in pursuit of the suspect in a shooting, who was known to them by sight (see, People v Burr, 70 N.Y.2d 354, cert denied 485 U.S. 989; People v Williams, 181 A.D.2d 474, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1055; People v Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 737, cert denied 495 U.S. 906). Once that suspect was lawfully apprehended, the only issue contested by the defendant, the police were further justified in conducting a security check of the apartment (see, Maryland v Buie, 494 U.S. 325; People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008; and see, People v Febus, 157 A.D.2d 380, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 835). That check was reasonable and necessary to dispel the detectives' concern for their safety. Again, neither in his motion in support of suppression nor on appeal did the defendant contest the authority for the security check or the extent to which it was conducted.

  6. People v. Colon

    187 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    On appeal, the defendant's sole objection to this testimony is that it constituted inadmissible evidence of uncharged crimes (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). However, this testimony was properly admitted, with limiting instructions from the court, to show the defendant's motive in shooting the victim (see, People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 597, 598; People v Johnson, 139 A.D.2d 594, 595; People v Pucci, 77 A.D.2d 916, 917). The defendant also objects to the admission of the sisters' testimony that for a time they themselves sold cocaine for him. It is not clear that this objection has been preserved for appellate review, although the defense counsel registered a "continuing objection" with regard to the sisters' testimony (see, People v Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 253).