People v. Manipole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manipole

182 A.D.2d 1113, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1113 (People v. Manipole) 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. Manipole, 182 A.D.2d 1113, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a jury verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, defendant contends that the police illegally stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger, that the prosecutor should not have charged the Grand Jury regarding the "automobile” presumption (see, Penal Law § 220.25 [1]), that the trial court failed to charge that accomplice testimony must be corroborated and that the circumstantial evidence charge was improper. None of those contentions requires reversal. The People’s case at trial did not rely upon the statutory presumption. Rather, the People relied upon the testimony of defendant’s accomplice that defendant possessed cocaine and the corroborative testimony of the police officers who observed defendant’s actions. Defendant’s contention that the vehicle was illegally stopped was not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, any error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a jury verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, defendant contends that the police illegally stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger, that the prosecutor should not have charged the Grand Jury regarding the "automobile” presumption (see, Penal Law § 220.25 [1]), that the trial court failed to charge that accomplice testimony must be corroborated and that the circumstantial evidence charge was improper. None of those contentions requires reversal. The People’s case at trial did not rely upon the statutory presumption. Rather, the People relied upon the testimony of defendant’s accomplice that defendant possessed cocaine and the corroborative testimony of the police officers who observed defendant’s actions. Defendant’s contention that the vehicle was illegally stopped was not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, any error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1113, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manipole-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack