People v. Mapp

245 A.D.2d 307, 667 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 307 (People v. Mapp) 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. Mapp, 245 A.D.2d 307, 667 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Cr urt, Kings County (Bruno, J.), rendered June 17, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, [308]*308upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kreindler, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence as probable cause for the defendant’s arrest was sufficiently established (see, Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 349).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the majority of his present challenges to remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation inasmuch as he either failed to object or voiced only general objections to the comments {see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910). To the limited extent that his contention regarding one remark has been preserved for appellate review, the court’s curative instruction effectively dissipated any prejudice (see, People v Walker, 185 AD2d 867).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Farrier
45 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Gonzales
296 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Harris
293 A.D.2d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Morris
293 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Almonte
290 A.D.2d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Ryant
278 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Wiltshire
276 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Tate
275 A.D.2d 380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Cabrera
272 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Brown
272 A.D.2d 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Brownridge
267 A.D.2d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Hall
264 A.D.2d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 307, 667 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mapp-nyappdiv-1997.