People v. Nolasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nolasco

142 A.D.2d 785, 531 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7836

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 785 (People v. Nolasco) 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. Nolasco, 142 A.D.2d 785, 531 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered December 6, 1985, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Following an altercation with another inmate in the prison yard at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, defendant was observed dropping an object to the ground by a correction officer standing some 5 to 10 yards away. The officer later testified at defendant’s trial that he proceeded immediately to the scene, never removing his eyes from the object on the ground and picked it up. It was a homemade weapon known as a "shank”, consisting of a razor blade melted into a toothbrush.

It is defendant’s contention that he never possessed such a weapon, and he so testified at trial. However, the jury rejected his testimony and accepted that of the correction officer, which is their exclusive province in passing upon issues of credibility (see, People v Joyiens, 39 NY2d 197, 203). Accordingly, since the evidence presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 302), defendant’s challenge to this credibility determination must fail.

We also reject defendant’s contentions that it was error to admit into evidence the rule book providing standards for inmates’ behavior on the ground that at the time he received a copy of the rules, they were not filed with the Secretary of State and thus were of no force and effect at the time of this prosecution, and that Penal Law § 205.00 (3) is unconstitutional (see, People v Anderson, 127 AD2d 885). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered December 6, 1985, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Following an altercation with another inmate in the prison yard at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, defendant was observed dropping an object to the ground by a correction officer standing some 5 to 10 yards away. The officer later testified at defendant’s trial that he proceeded immediately to the scene, never removing his eyes from the object on the ground and picked it up. It was a homemade weapon known as a "shank”, consisting of a razor blade melted into a toothbrush.

It is defendant’s contention that he never possessed such a weapon, and he so testified at trial. However, the jury rejected his testimony and accepted that of the correction officer, which is their exclusive province in passing upon issues of credibility (see, People v Joyiens, 39 NY2d 197, 203). Accordingly, since the evidence presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 302), defendant’s challenge to this credibility determination must fail.

We also reject defendant’s contentions that it was error to admit into evidence the rule book providing standards for inmates’ behavior on the ground that at the time he received a copy of the rules, they were not filed with the Secretary of State and thus were of no force and effect at the time of this prosecution, and that Penal Law § 205.00 (3) is unconstitutional (see, People v Anderson, 127 AD2d 885). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 785, 531 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nolasco-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack