People v. Dumas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dumas

29 A.D.2d 984, 290 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202

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

DecidedApril 22, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 984 (People v. Dumas) 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. Dumas, 29 A.D.2d 984, 290 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1967, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Order reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and new hearing granted. At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the only evidence presented was the uncontradieted testimony of one of the three police officers who witnessed the incident leading to the arrest of defendant and the search and seizure of the narcotics, hypodermic needles and syringes. The court chose not to believe that testimony. In our opinion, a full hearing should be had at which the People should be given the opportunity to present the testimony of all three officers and the defendant should be given the opportunity to present his evidence. Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Christ and Benjamin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: It was within the proper scope of the Justice trying the issues in this case to disbelieve the police officer. He clearly stated this to be the reason for his determination. The majority slip suggests that the People should be permitted to have a new hearing so as to present witnesses not previously called and for whose absence no excuse was offered. The People had a full opportunity to put in the complete case for the prosecution and it may be presumed that this was done and that witnesses within the People’s control who were not called would not have supported its position. The defendant should not be subjected to a succession of hearings upon this issue.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1967, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Order reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and new hearing granted. At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the only evidence presented was the uncontradieted testimony of one of the three police officers who witnessed the incident leading to the arrest of defendant and the search and seizure of the narcotics, hypodermic needles and syringes. The court chose not to believe that testimony. In our opinion, a full hearing should be had at which the People should be given the opportunity to present the testimony of all three officers and the defendant should be given the opportunity to present his evidence. Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Christ and Benjamin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: It was within the proper scope of the Justice trying the issues in this case to disbelieve the police officer. He clearly stated this to be the reason for his determination. The majority slip suggests that the People should be permitted to have a new hearing so as to present witnesses not previously called and for whose absence no excuse was offered. The People had a full opportunity to put in the complete case for the prosecution and it may be presumed that this was done and that witnesses within the People’s control who were not called would not have supported its position. The defendant should not be subjected to a succession of hearings upon this issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 984, 290 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dumas-nyappdiv-1968.