People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Freeman

253 A.D.2d 692, 679 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 253 A.D.2d 692, 679 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 13, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress property was properly denied. Since defendant made no application to reopen the Mapp hearing during trial, the court was under no obligation to reopen the hearing sua sponte (see, CPL 710.40 [4]). Defendant’s allusions during trial to conflicts between hearing and trial testimony did not constitute a request for a reopened hearing. In any event, even in light of the purported conflicts in testimony revealed during trial, there was probable cause to search defendant.

The prosecutor’s statements made during summation did not shift the burden of proof to defendant, and were based on the evidence and responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 13, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress property was properly denied. Since defendant made no application to reopen the Mapp hearing during trial, the court was under no obligation to reopen the hearing sua sponte (see, CPL 710.40 [4]). Defendant’s allusions during trial to conflicts between hearing and trial testimony did not constitute a request for a reopened hearing. In any event, even in light of the purported conflicts in testimony revealed during trial, there was probable cause to search defendant.

The prosecutor’s statements made during summation did not shift the burden of proof to defendant, and were based on the evidence and responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 692, 679 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-freeman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack