People v. Marasa

284 A.D.2d 971, 726 N.Y.S.2d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 2001
DocketAppeal No. 2
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Marasa) 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. Marasa, 284 A.D.2d 971, 726 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Monroe County Court to determine whether sufficient evidence could be developed at a reconstruction hearing concerning “defendant’s mental capacity at the time of trial and, if so, to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial” (People v Marasa, 270 AD2d 902, 903). The record supports the court’s determination following the reconstruction hearing that the People sustained their burden of demonstrating by a fair preponderance of the evidence defendant’s competence to stand trial (see, People v Bey, 167 AD2d 868; People v Graham, 139 AD2d 789, 789-790, lv denied 72 NY2d 860; People v Wright, 124 AD2d 1015, lv denied 69 NY2d 751). The court properly-denied that part of the motion of defendant seeking suppression of his statements and items of tangible evidence seized by the police. The police officer’s initial request for information from defendant was “supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184). Based upon defendant’s response to that initial request, along with information obtained from other [972]*972sources, “the police possessed a founded suspicion of criminality justifying a common-law inquiry in the form of a request for defendant to consent to a search of [his person]” (People v Battaglia, 86 NY2d 755, 756). Finally, after learning that the inspection on defendant’s vehicle had expired and that the registration on the vehicle was suspended, the police were authorized to impound it (see, People v Valerio, 274 AD2d 950, 951, affd 95 NY2d 924, cert denied — US —, 121 S Ct 1623) and to conduct an inventory search (see, People v Sullivan, 29 NY2d 69, 77). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Hurlbutt, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Hernandez
2024 NY Slip Op 51518(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
People v. Essic
2024 NY Slip Op 51517(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
People v. Jefferson
76 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Iverson
22 Misc. 3d 470 (Rochester City Court, 2008)
People v. Williams
39 A.D.3d 1275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Matter of Londell S.
2005 NY Slip Op 50663(U) (Kings Family Court, 2005)
People v. Jackson
16 A.D.3d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Miles
3 Misc. 3d 566 (Rochester City Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 971, 726 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marasa-nyappdiv-2001.