People v. Bryant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bryant

91 A.D.3d 558, 937 N.Y.2d 55

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 558 (People v. Bryant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bryant, 91 A.D.3d 558, 937 N.Y.2d 55 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Upon defendant’s lawful arrest at the door of his apartment, the police properly conducted a limited protective sweep of the apartment to determine if there was anyone present who might destroy evidence or pose a threat to the officers (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325, 334 [1990]). The robbery victim had provided information warranting a reasonable belief that other participants in the robbery might be present in the apartment. The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the recovery of incriminating evidence from a partly open closet was justified under the plain view doctrine, and was within the scope of the protective sweep (see People v Lasso-Reina, 305 AD2d 121, 122 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 595 [2003]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no [559]*559basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the uncalled witness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony (see People v Brunner, 67 AD3d 464, 465 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 820 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Upon defendant’s lawful arrest at the door of his apartment, the police properly conducted a limited protective sweep of the apartment to determine if there was anyone present who might destroy evidence or pose a threat to the officers (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325, 334 [1990]). The robbery victim had provided information warranting a reasonable belief that other participants in the robbery might be present in the apartment. The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the recovery of incriminating evidence from a partly open closet was justified under the plain view doctrine, and was within the scope of the protective sweep (see People v Lasso-Reina, 305 AD2d 121, 122 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 595 [2003]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no [559]*559basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the uncalled witness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony (see People v Brunner, 67 AD3d 464, 465 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 820 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 558, 937 N.Y.2d 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bryant-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack