People v. Moolenaar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moolenaar

262 A.D.2d 60, 694 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6426

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

DecidedJune 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 60 (People v. Moolenaar) 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. Moolenaar, 262 A.D.2d 60, 694 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., on speedy trial motion; Jay Gold, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 1, 1997, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion (see, People v Acevedo, 40 NY2d 701, 704) in refusing to allow defendant’s expert witness to testify as to the results of a crime scene reenactment that allegedly would have discredited the testimony of the observing officer concerning his ability to see the subject drug transactions. It could not be verified that the conditions existing at the time of the crime were accurately replicated at the reenactment, particularly with regard to hand motions and lighting conditions, and there was no guarantee that cross-examination by the People would be sufficient to prevent this evidence from confusing and misleading the jury (see, People v Esquilin, 207 AD2d 686, lv denied 84 NY2d 907; People v Gregg, 203 AD2d 188, 189, lv denied 83 NY2d 911).

Defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied. The court correctly excluded the 32-day period after the decision on the omnibus motion as a reasonable period of delay resulting from motion practice (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]), since the People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the suppression hearings ordered therein (see, People v Green, 90 AD2d 705, lv denied 58 NY2d 784). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., on speedy trial motion; Jay Gold, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 1, 1997, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion (see, People v Acevedo, 40 NY2d 701, 704) in refusing to allow defendant’s expert witness to testify as to the results of a crime scene reenactment that allegedly would have discredited the testimony of the observing officer concerning his ability to see the subject drug transactions. It could not be verified that the conditions existing at the time of the crime were accurately replicated at the reenactment, particularly with regard to hand motions and lighting conditions, and there was no guarantee that cross-examination by the People would be sufficient to prevent this evidence from confusing and misleading the jury (see, People v Esquilin, 207 AD2d 686, lv denied 84 NY2d 907; People v Gregg, 203 AD2d 188, 189, lv denied 83 NY2d 911).

Defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied. The court correctly excluded the 32-day period after the decision on the omnibus motion as a reasonable period of delay resulting from motion practice (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]), since the People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the suppression hearings ordered therein (see, People v Green, 90 AD2d 705, lv denied 58 NY2d 784). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 60, 694 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moolenaar-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack