People v. Genyard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Genyard

276 A.D.2d 299, 714 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10506

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Su[300]*300preme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J., at hearing; Nicholas Iacovetta, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 16, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In this observation sale case, probable cause was established by the arresting officer’s testimony that he acted in response to information received from the observing officer, who radioed that he had seen a “drug transaction” and provided the description and location of the person he had seen “selling drugs”. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the People had no obligation to either call the observing officer to the stand or to elicit the arresting officer’s understanding of the term “drug transaction”, the meaning of which is obvious in this context (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416; People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[300]*300preme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J., at hearing; Nicholas Iacovetta, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 16, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In this observation sale case, probable cause was established by the arresting officer’s testimony that he acted in response to information received from the observing officer, who radioed that he had seen a “drug transaction” and provided the description and location of the person he had seen “selling drugs”. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the People had no obligation to either call the observing officer to the stand or to elicit the arresting officer’s understanding of the term “drug transaction”, the meaning of which is obvious in this context (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416; People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

People v. Genyard, 276 A.D.2d 299, 714 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 299 (People v. Genyard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related