People v. Crosby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crosby

15 A.D.3d 592, 790 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1835

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 592 (People v. Crosby) 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. Crosby, 15 A.D.3d 592, 790 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 13, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance [593]*593in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Hollie, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress a bag of crack-cocaine found in the pocket of his jeans was proper. The hearing court credited the testimony of the arresting officer that the defendant, although rear handcuffed, physically and verbally motioned and verbally referred to a pair of jeans on the bedroom floor, and in response to the officer affirmed that the officer picked up the correct pair. The defendant was assisted into the jeans, and the officer immediately searched the jeans for weapons or contraband, finding a small bag of crack-cocaine in a pocket. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this testimony was not incredible as a matter of law in that it was not “ ‘manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience or self-contradictory’ ” (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974], quoting 22 NY Jur, Evidence § 649).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see People v Young, 291 AD2d 578 [2002]; People v Panzarino, 282 AD2d 292, 293 [2001]; People v Vance, 218 AD2d 765, 766 [1995]). Florio, J.E, Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 13, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance [593]*593in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Hollie, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress a bag of crack-cocaine found in the pocket of his jeans was proper. The hearing court credited the testimony of the arresting officer that the defendant, although rear handcuffed, physically and verbally motioned and verbally referred to a pair of jeans on the bedroom floor, and in response to the officer affirmed that the officer picked up the correct pair. The defendant was assisted into the jeans, and the officer immediately searched the jeans for weapons or contraband, finding a small bag of crack-cocaine in a pocket. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this testimony was not incredible as a matter of law in that it was not “ ‘manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience or self-contradictory’ ” (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974], quoting 22 NY Jur, Evidence § 649).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see People v Young, 291 AD2d 578 [2002]; People v Panzarino, 282 AD2d 292, 293 [2001]; People v Vance, 218 AD2d 765, 766 [1995]). Florio, J.E, Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 592, 790 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crosby-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack