People v. Edmonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Edmonds

218 A.D.2d 669, 630 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8285

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

DecidedAugust 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 218 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Edmonds) 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. Edmonds, 218 A.D.2d 669, 630 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the [670]*670defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 21, 1993, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress fingerprint evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court properly concluded that certain fingerprint evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule (see, e.g., People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313; People v Fitzpatrick, 32 NY2d 499, 508-509, cert denied 414 US 1033, 1050; People v Watson, 188 AD2d 501, 502). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the [670]*670defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 21, 1993, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress fingerprint evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court properly concluded that certain fingerprint evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule (see, e.g., People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313; People v Fitzpatrick, 32 NY2d 499, 508-509, cert denied 414 US 1033, 1050; People v Watson, 188 AD2d 501, 502). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 669, 630 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edmonds-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack