People v. Canady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canady

235 A.D.2d 290, 653 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 290 (People v. Canady) 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. Canady, 235 A.D.2d 290, 653 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered May 23, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a juvenile offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life and 3⅓ to 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which established, inter alia, that, as defendant stood guard with a sawed-off shotgun, the codefendant entered and remained in the area behind the counter of the grocery store where the cash register was located, an area that was not open to the public. There is no requirement that such a nonpublic area be separately secured or occupied (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]).

The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and to search his clothing, wherein a spent shotgun shell was recovered. The arresting officer saw the eyewitness point to and identify defendant and was informed by a fellow officer that the witness had positively identified defendant as being one of the perpetrators. Moreover, under the circumstances, the eyewitness’s pointing out of defendant, by itself, clearly signified that defendant was a participant in the crime.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered May 23, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a juvenile offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life and 3⅓ to 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which established, inter alia, that, as defendant stood guard with a sawed-off shotgun, the codefendant entered and remained in the area behind the counter of the grocery store where the cash register was located, an area that was not open to the public. There is no requirement that such a nonpublic area be separately secured or occupied (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]).

The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and to search his clothing, wherein a spent shotgun shell was recovered. The arresting officer saw the eyewitness point to and identify defendant and was informed by a fellow officer that the witness had positively identified defendant as being one of the perpetrators. Moreover, under the circumstances, the eyewitness’s pointing out of defendant, by itself, clearly signified that defendant was a participant in the crime.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 290, 653 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canady-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack