People v. Ransdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ransdell

254 A.D.2d 63, 680 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 63 (People v. Ransdell) 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. Ransdell, 254 A.D.2d 63, 680 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the police reasonably concluded from all the circumstances that the victim’s exclamation “That’s him!”, made while pointing to defendant, was based on personal knowledge (see, People v Wearing, 246 AD2d 404, lv denied 91 NY2d 946). The court did not constructively amend the indictment by charging that the People needed to prove only that defendant had entered the building, rather than the specific apartment where the victim resided where the court’s burglary charge did not vary from the indictment (People v Perry, 226 AD2d 282, lv denied, 88 NY2d 940; People v James, 204 AD2d 180, lv denied 84 NY2d 827). We do not read the People’s voluntary disclosure form as limiting the theory of prosecution (see, People v Medina, 233 AD2d 927, lv denied 89 NY2d 926). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the police reasonably concluded from all the circumstances that the victim’s exclamation “That’s him!”, made while pointing to defendant, was based on personal knowledge (see, People v Wearing, 246 AD2d 404, lv denied 91 NY2d 946). The court did not constructively amend the indictment by charging that the People needed to prove only that defendant had entered the building, rather than the specific apartment where the victim resided where the court’s burglary charge did not vary from the indictment (People v Perry, 226 AD2d 282, lv denied, 88 NY2d 940; People v James, 204 AD2d 180, lv denied 84 NY2d 827). We do not read the People’s voluntary disclosure form as limiting the theory of prosecution (see, People v Medina, 233 AD2d 927, lv denied 89 NY2d 926). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 63, 680 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ransdell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack