People v. McChesney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McChesney

81 A.D.2d 927, 439 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658

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

DecidedMay 7, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 927 (People v. McChesney) 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. McChesney, 81 A.D.2d 927, 439 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered September 14, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of rape in the first degree. We have carefully examined the numerous grounds for reversal urged by defendant on this appeal and find no merit in any of his contentions. However, two of the issues presented warrant brief comment. First, although the indictment containing two counts of first degree rape employed the language of the statute, it did allege each and every element of that crime. Moreover, defendant later moved for and received a bill of particulars (People v Jackson, 46 NY2d 721; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 599). Second, while, defendant alleged that he owned the vehicle searched by the police following his incarceration on other charges, the prosecution demonstrated that, in fact, the automobile was owned by another and had been reported as stolen. Defendant offered no contrary proof and failed to establish that he was lawfully in the vehicle when apprehended. Therefore, it was entirely proper for the suppression court to rule he lacked standing to dispute the validity of the search (Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128). Judgment affirmed. Kane, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered September 14, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of rape in the first degree. We have carefully examined the numerous grounds for reversal urged by defendant on this appeal and find no merit in any of his contentions. However, two of the issues presented warrant brief comment. First, although the indictment containing two counts of first degree rape employed the language of the statute, it did allege each and every element of that crime. Moreover, defendant later moved for and received a bill of particulars (People v Jackson, 46 NY2d 721; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 599). Second, while, defendant alleged that he owned the vehicle searched by the police following his incarceration on other charges, the prosecution demonstrated that, in fact, the automobile was owned by another and had been reported as stolen. Defendant offered no contrary proof and failed to establish that he was lawfully in the vehicle when apprehended. Therefore, it was entirely proper for the suppression court to rule he lacked standing to dispute the validity of the search (Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128). Judgment affirmed. Kane, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 927, 439 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcchesney-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack