People v. Sappleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sappleton

234 A.D.2d 81, 651 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 81 (People v. Sappleton) 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. Sappleton, 234 A.D.2d 81, 651 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [82]*82Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J., at hearing; Harold Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 11/2 to 41/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s imprisonment and interrogation, the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285).

Defendant’s claim that the court’s charge removed from the jury’s consideration the fifth element of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is unpreserved and is not exempt from the requirement of preservation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). Were we to review the claim, we would find that the charge as a whole, including the supplemental charge, conveyed the proper legal principles (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). We also note that the element of possession outside defendant’s home or place of business was never an issue at trial, and that the possession took place at an outdoor location which was not anyone’s home or place of business.

We adhere to our prior determination denying defendant’s motion for production of certain minutes. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [82]*82Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J., at hearing; Harold Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 11/2 to 41/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s imprisonment and interrogation, the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285).

Defendant’s claim that the court’s charge removed from the jury’s consideration the fifth element of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is unpreserved and is not exempt from the requirement of preservation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). Were we to review the claim, we would find that the charge as a whole, including the supplemental charge, conveyed the proper legal principles (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). We also note that the element of possession outside defendant’s home or place of business was never an issue at trial, and that the possession took place at an outdoor location which was not anyone’s home or place of business.

We adhere to our prior determination denying defendant’s motion for production of certain minutes. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 81, 651 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sappleton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack