People v. Etoll

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Etoll

413 N.E.2d 1165, 51 N.Y.2d 840, 433 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2694

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 413 N.E.2d 1165 (People v. Etoll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Etoll, 413 N.E.2d 1165, 51 N.Y.2d 840, 433 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2694 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[841]*841The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

At trial, two notebooks containing prostitution records were admitted into evidence against defendant. On this appeal defendant contends that these notebooks, which were seized by a police officer who was lawfully in her apartment for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, should not have been admitted into evidence under the "plain view” doctrine because the incriminatory nature of this evidence was not "immediately apparent”. (See Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466.) While we agree with defendant that the outward appearance of the notebooks in question was such that a police officer, no matter how expert, could not have recognized them as evidence of a crime, we must, nonetheless, affirm defendant’s conviction. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that there is no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to suppress the notebooks in question might have contributed to defendant’s conviction. Thus, in our view, the error asserted is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230.)

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[841]*841The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

At trial, two notebooks containing prostitution records were admitted into evidence against defendant. On this appeal defendant contends that these notebooks, which were seized by a police officer who was lawfully in her apartment for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, should not have been admitted into evidence under the "plain view” doctrine because the incriminatory nature of this evidence was not "immediately apparent”. (See Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466.) While we agree with defendant that the outward appearance of the notebooks in question was such that a police officer, no matter how expert, could not have recognized them as evidence of a crime, we must, nonetheless, affirm defendant’s conviction. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that there is no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to suppress the notebooks in question might have contributed to defendant’s conviction. Thus, in our view, the error asserted is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230.)

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 N.E.2d 1165, 51 N.Y.2d 840, 433 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-etoll-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack