People v. Frazier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frazier

52 A.D.3d 1317, 860 N.Y.S.2d 367

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

DecidedJune 13, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1317 (People v. Frazier) 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. Frazier, 52 A.D.3d 1317, 860 N.Y.S.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered February 1, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27 [1] [a] [vi]; [b]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized by the police from the vehicle in which he was a passenger. We reject that contention. The police officer who stopped the vehicle testified at the suppression hearing that she stopped the vehicle based on her observation that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (3). The court’s determination to credit the testimony that the stop was based on a traffic violation is entitled to great deference (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 [1992]), and the officer’s primary motivation for the stop is irrelevant (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 350 [2001]). In any event, the court also properly determined that the People established that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that at least one of the vehicle’s occupants had been involved in a crime and thus was justified in stopping the vehicle on that ground as well (see People v Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 752-753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; see generally People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 238 [1986]). Finally, defendant contends that he was denied due process because the police did not electronically record his interrogation. We reject that contention (see People v Davis, 48 AD3d 1086 [2008]; People v Vought, 45 AD3d 1247, 1248-1249 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 817 [2008]). Present—Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered February 1, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27 [1] [a] [vi]; [b]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized by the police from the vehicle in which he was a passenger. We reject that contention. The police officer who stopped the vehicle testified at the suppression hearing that she stopped the vehicle based on her observation that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (3). The court’s determination to credit the testimony that the stop was based on a traffic violation is entitled to great deference (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 [1992]), and the officer’s primary motivation for the stop is irrelevant (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341, 350 [2001]). In any event, the court also properly determined that the People established that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that at least one of the vehicle’s occupants had been involved in a crime and thus was justified in stopping the vehicle on that ground as well (see People v Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 752-753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; see generally People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 238 [1986]). Finally, defendant contends that he was denied due process because the police did not electronically record his interrogation. We reject that contention (see People v Davis, 48 AD3d 1086 [2008]; People v Vought, 45 AD3d 1247, 1248-1249 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 817 [2008]). Present—Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 1317, 860 N.Y.S.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frazier-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack