People v. Marchan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marchan

36 A.D.3d 499, 831 N.Y.S.2d 111

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 499 (People v. Marchan) 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. Marchan, 36 A.D.3d 499, 831 N.Y.S.2d 111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[500]*500Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered August 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence. Defendant never disputed the People’s allegation that the identifications were confirmatory in that they occurred immediately after the drug transaction, as a planned and integral part of the police procedure (see People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 [1989]). The identification procedures were indistinguishable from those found in Wharton to be confirmatory and exempt from the requirement of a hearing (compare People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427 [2006]).

The court correctly concluded that, by raising an issue to which the evidence in question was directly relevant, defendant opened the door to evidence about a large quantity of cash, other than prerecorded buy money, that was recovered from his person (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445 [1982]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

[500]*500Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered August 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence. Defendant never disputed the People’s allegation that the identifications were confirmatory in that they occurred immediately after the drug transaction, as a planned and integral part of the police procedure (see People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 [1989]). The identification procedures were indistinguishable from those found in Wharton to be confirmatory and exempt from the requirement of a hearing (compare People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427 [2006]).

The court correctly concluded that, by raising an issue to which the evidence in question was directly relevant, defendant opened the door to evidence about a large quantity of cash, other than prerecorded buy money, that was recovered from his person (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445 [1982]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 499, 831 N.Y.S.2d 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marchan-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack