People v. Hardgers

222 A.D.2d 1038, 636 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14089
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification; no reasonable view of the evidence established the elements of the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816). Defendant contends that the court should have suppressed the gun because his sister lacked authority to consent to the search. We disagree. Here, the "searching officers rel[ied] in good faith on the apparent capability of [defendant’s sixteen-year-old sister] to consent to a search and the circumstances reasonably indicate[d] that [she did], in fact, have the authority to consent” (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 9, rearg denied 54 NY2d 832, cert denied 454 US 854; see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 1], 222 AD2d 1073 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

People v. Hardgers, 222 A.D.2d 1038, 636 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

222 A.D.2d 1038 (People v. Hardgers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allen v. State
44 So. 3d 525 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2009)
People v. Bostic
222 A.D.2d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)