From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.).


Defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The in-court identification testimony of the undercover officer was credible and buttressed by other identification testimony linking defendant to the drug sale. The officer's participation in the sale was planned (People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271), he had ample opportunity under good conditions to view defendant, and the officer demonstrated his ability to recall specific details. Nor, based upon the hearing testimony, is there any indication that the in-court identification should have been suppressed. (People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600.)

Defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the indictment because he was arrested 14 months after the drug sale. (See, generally, People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241.) There was no "unjustifiable delay" in this case. The credible evidence produced at the hearing shows that the police made a reasonable effort to apprehend defendant, who was avoiding apprehension. Defendant also fails to establish that his sentence is excessive.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Stasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Stasio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT STASIO…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
560 N.Y.S.2d 427

Citing Cases

People v. Bonilla

Assuming arguendo that the testifying undercover police officer's brief reference to defendant's possession…