People v. Luis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luis

145 A.D.2d 960, 536 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 960 (People v. Luis) 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. Luis, 145 A.D.2d 960, 536 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court’s determination that the consent search of the apartment was valid is supported by the record; therefore, the items seized pursuant to this search were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128). The items seized pursuant to the search warrant were erroneously admitted because the warrant was not based upon probable cause. The affidavit in support of the warrant application alleged that the victim had been attacked in the upper apartment of a house on Park Avenue, but failed to set forth any allegations demonstrating that the fruits of the crime would be in this particular apartment. However, we determine that the admission into evidence of the items seized pursuant to the warrant was harmless error. The proof against defendant is overwhelming and there exists no possibility that defendant would have been acquitted but for the admission of these items (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

[961]*961Defendant further argues that reversal is required because the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was erroneous. Despite the instructions of this and other courts to the contrary, the trial court used improper phrases such as "reasonable degree of certainty” and "good, sound, substantial reason” when defining reasonable doubt (see, People v Price, 144 AD2d 1013, and cases cited therein). Because no objection was registered to the charge when given, defendant has failed to preserve his objections for review (GPL 470.05 [2]). Because the charge, when viewed in its entirety, conveyed to the jury the concept of reasonable doubt, we decline to reverse the conviction in the interests of justice.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — attempted murder, second degree; robbery, first degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court’s determination that the consent search of the apartment was valid is supported by the record; therefore, the items seized pursuant to this search were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128). The items seized pursuant to the search warrant were erroneously admitted because the warrant was not based upon probable cause. The affidavit in support of the warrant application alleged that the victim had been attacked in the upper apartment of a house on Park Avenue, but failed to set forth any allegations demonstrating that the fruits of the crime would be in this particular apartment. However, we determine that the admission into evidence of the items seized pursuant to the warrant was harmless error. The proof against defendant is overwhelming and there exists no possibility that defendant would have been acquitted but for the admission of these items (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

[961]*961Defendant further argues that reversal is required because the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was erroneous. Despite the instructions of this and other courts to the contrary, the trial court used improper phrases such as "reasonable degree of certainty” and "good, sound, substantial reason” when defining reasonable doubt (see, People v Price, 144 AD2d 1013, and cases cited therein). Because no objection was registered to the charge when given, defendant has failed to preserve his objections for review (GPL 470.05 [2]). Because the charge, when viewed in its entirety, conveyed to the jury the concept of reasonable doubt, we decline to reverse the conviction in the interests of justice.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — attempted murder, second degree; robbery, first degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 960, 536 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luis-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack