People v. Hemmings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hemmings

191 A.D.2d 1020, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1020 (People v. Hemmings) 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. Hemmings, 191 A.D.2d 1020, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People’s evidence concerning the chain of custody of the cocaine was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343; People v Moyer, 186 AD2d 997; People v McIntyre, 175 AD2d 637, 638, lv denied 79 NY2d 860; People v Green, 155 AD2d 880, lv denied 75 NY2d 813). Defendant’s statement, which County Court suppressed because it was taken in violation of defendant’s Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), was properly admitted for impeachment purposes (see, People v Maerling, 64 NY2d 134, 140). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People’s evidence concerning the chain of custody of the cocaine was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343; People v Moyer, 186 AD2d 997; People v McIntyre, 175 AD2d 637, 638, lv denied 79 NY2d 860; People v Green, 155 AD2d 880, lv denied 75 NY2d 813). Defendant’s statement, which County Court suppressed because it was taken in violation of defendant’s Miranda rights (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436), was properly admitted for impeachment purposes (see, People v Maerling, 64 NY2d 134, 140). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1020, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hemmings-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack