People v. Capo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Capo

214 A.D.2d 342, 625 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3696

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

DecidedApril 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 342 (People v. Capo) 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. Capo, 214 A.D.2d 342, 625 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J., at Mapp hearing; Arlene Silverman, J., at trial and sentence), rendered July 12, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claims that the observing officer’s description was too vague to give the arresting officer probable cause to arrest, and that the reference at trial to a buyer who had passed through a school yard constituted prejudicial evidence of an uncharged crime, are both unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Carmona, 172 AD2d 151, lv denied 78 NY2d 963; see, People v Clarke, 81 NY2d 777), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that the description was sufficiently detailed and the response sufficiently swift to justify the arrest, and that the reference to a school yard was relevant to showing the buyer’s path, did not necessarily suggest, and certainly was not offered as proof that a sale had taken place in or near a school yard, and to the extent it did so suggest, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J., at Mapp hearing; Arlene Silverman, J., at trial and sentence), rendered July 12, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claims that the observing officer’s description was too vague to give the arresting officer probable cause to arrest, and that the reference at trial to a buyer who had passed through a school yard constituted prejudicial evidence of an uncharged crime, are both unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Carmona, 172 AD2d 151, lv denied 78 NY2d 963; see, People v Clarke, 81 NY2d 777), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that the description was sufficiently detailed and the response sufficiently swift to justify the arrest, and that the reference to a school yard was relevant to showing the buyer’s path, did not necessarily suggest, and certainly was not offered as proof that a sale had taken place in or near a school yard, and to the extent it did so suggest, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 342, 625 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-capo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack