People v. Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosa

69 A.D.2d 868, 415 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11585

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

DecidedApril 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 868 (People v. Rosa) 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. Rosa, 69 A.D.2d 868, 415 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 3, 1978, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Notwithstanding the fact that the arresting officer’s testimony before the Grand Jury and at trial differed as to the chronology of observing a weapon in the immediate vicinity of the defendant and the search of his person, the trial testimony may not be said, as a matter of law, to have been "tailored” to preclude constitutional objections to the search, as the defendant contends. Furthermore, the credible evidence adduced indicates there existed a sufficient factual basis to conclude that the officer entertained a reasonable belief that defendant was involved in the commission of a crime, or was about to commit a crime, and thus he was justified in searching the defendant regardless of whether another weapon was located before the search. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 3, 1978, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Notwithstanding the fact that the arresting officer’s testimony before the Grand Jury and at trial differed as to the chronology of observing a weapon in the immediate vicinity of the defendant and the search of his person, the trial testimony may not be said, as a matter of law, to have been "tailored” to preclude constitutional objections to the search, as the defendant contends. Furthermore, the credible evidence adduced indicates there existed a sufficient factual basis to conclude that the officer entertained a reasonable belief that defendant was involved in the commission of a crime, or was about to commit a crime, and thus he was justified in searching the defendant regardless of whether another weapon was located before the search. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 868, 415 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosa-nyappdiv-1979.