People v. Caple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caple

31 A.D.2d 752, 297 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4800

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 752 (People v. Caple) 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. Caple, 31 A.D.2d 752, 297 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 21, 1968, convicting him ,of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. A determination by said court denying in part defendant’s motion to suppress evidence has been reviewed on this appeal. Judgment affirmed. On a motion to suppress evidence, while the People are under -the necessity of going forward in the first instance, the ultimate burden of proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence rests with defendant (People v. Merola, 30 A D 2d 963). In our opinion, under -the circumstances presented in the record, there was no abuse of discretion on .the part of the -trial court in refusing to grant appellant’s request for a continuance. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 21, 1968, convicting him ,of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. A determination by said court denying in part defendant’s motion to suppress evidence has been reviewed on this appeal. Judgment affirmed. On a motion to suppress evidence, while the People are under -the necessity of going forward in the first instance, the ultimate burden of proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence rests with defendant (People v. Merola, 30 A D 2d 963). In our opinion, under -the circumstances presented in the record, there was no abuse of discretion on .the part of the -trial court in refusing to grant appellant’s request for a continuance. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 752, 297 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caple-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack