People v. Pounds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pounds

219 A.D.2d 879, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11074

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 879 (People v. Pounds) 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. Pounds, 219 A.D.2d 879, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged [880]*880instrument in the second degree, defendant contends that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained by the police from Bell’s Supermarket. Specifically, defendant challenges the suppression court’s reliance on the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. We reject defendant’s challenge. The People established "a very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source” (People v Payton, 45 NY2d 300, 313, revd on other grounds 445 US 573, on remand 51 NY2d 169; see, People v Fitzpatrick, 32 NY2d 499, 506, cert denied 414 US 1033,1050; People v Watson, 188 AD2d 501). Moreover, the challenged evidence "was not evidence illegally obtained during or as the immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” (People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 318). Rather, it was "evidence obtained indirectly as a result of leads or information gained from [the] primary evidence” (People v Stith, supra, at 318). Thus, the record supports the suppression court’s application of the inevitable discovery exception to the challenged evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged [880]*880instrument in the second degree, defendant contends that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained by the police from Bell’s Supermarket. Specifically, defendant challenges the suppression court’s reliance on the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. We reject defendant’s challenge. The People established "a very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source” (People v Payton, 45 NY2d 300, 313, revd on other grounds 445 US 573, on remand 51 NY2d 169; see, People v Fitzpatrick, 32 NY2d 499, 506, cert denied 414 US 1033,1050; People v Watson, 188 AD2d 501). Moreover, the challenged evidence "was not evidence illegally obtained during or as the immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” (People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313, 318). Rather, it was "evidence obtained indirectly as a result of leads or information gained from [the] primary evidence” (People v Stith, supra, at 318). Thus, the record supports the suppression court’s application of the inevitable discovery exception to the challenged evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 879, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pounds-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack