People v. Keith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keith

272 A.D.2d 961, 708 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8731

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

DecidedMay 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 961 (People v. Keith) 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. Keith, 272 A.D.2d 961, 708 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress an inculpatory remark allegedly made during the booking process. The remark was made after defendant “requested and obtained a brief response from the arresting officer as to why he was being charged” (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 478, rearg denied 57 NY2d 775). We conclude that the officer’s response was “a simple statement of fact, not provocative in any sense” (People v Howard, 60 NY2d 999, 1001; see, People v Arch, 265 AD2d 868, lv denied 94 NY2d 860). We reject defendant’s contentions that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh [962]*962nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ. .

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress an inculpatory remark allegedly made during the booking process. The remark was made after defendant “requested and obtained a brief response from the arresting officer as to why he was being charged” (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 478, rearg denied 57 NY2d 775). We conclude that the officer’s response was “a simple statement of fact, not provocative in any sense” (People v Howard, 60 NY2d 999, 1001; see, People v Arch, 265 AD2d 868, lv denied 94 NY2d 860). We reject defendant’s contentions that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh [962]*962nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 961, 708 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keith-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack