People v. Outterbridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Outterbridge

29 A.D.2d 692, 287 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Outterbridge) 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. Outterbridge, 29 A.D.2d 692, 287 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 20, 1967, which convicted defendant of the sale of narcotic drugs and of possession of narcotic drugs as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence, affirmed. In our opinion, no reversible error was committed by the County Court. The one and one-half month delay from the time of the commission of the offense to defendant’s arrest did not constitute a deprivation of his rights (see, Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293; Daniels v. United States, 357 F. 2d 587). The record is devoid of evidence showing a purposeful or deliberate design for the delay (United States v. Wilson, 342 F. 2d 782, cert. den. 382 U. S. 860). Under the circumstances presented herein, as no prejudice to defendant was established and the conduct of the police was reasonable, the delayed arrest is not a ground sufficient to warrant reversal (Fleming v. United States, 378 F. 2d 502; cf. Woody v. United States, 370 F. 2d 214). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 20, 1967, which convicted defendant of the sale of narcotic drugs and of possession of narcotic drugs as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence, affirmed. In our opinion, no reversible error was committed by the County Court. The one and one-half month delay from the time of the commission of the offense to defendant’s arrest did not constitute a deprivation of his rights (see, Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293; Daniels v. United States, 357 F. 2d 587). The record is devoid of evidence showing a purposeful or deliberate design for the delay (United States v. Wilson, 342 F. 2d 782, cert. den. 382 U. S. 860). Under the circumstances presented herein, as no prejudice to defendant was established and the conduct of the police was reasonable, the delayed arrest is not a ground sufficient to warrant reversal (Fleming v. United States, 378 F. 2d 502; cf. Woody v. United States, 370 F. 2d 214). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 692, 287 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-outterbridge-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack