People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shaw

58 A.D.2d 818, 395 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 818 (People v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 58 A.D.2d 818, 395 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme [819]*819Court, Queens County, rendered June 16, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report on the following three issues: (1) Was the officer (Detective George Townsend) in uniform at the time of the events in question? (2) Did the officer identify himself as a police officer? (3) Did the defendant know that Detective Townsend was a police officer? Appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The answers to these questions are necessary for the proper resolution of this appeal. Hopkins, J. P., Hargett, Shapiro and Suozzi, 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 [819]*819Court, Queens County, rendered June 16, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report on the following three issues: (1) Was the officer (Detective George Townsend) in uniform at the time of the events in question? (2) Did the officer identify himself as a police officer? (3) Did the defendant know that Detective Townsend was a police officer? Appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The answers to these questions are necessary for the proper resolution of this appeal. Hopkins, J. P., Hargett, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 818, 395 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shaw-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack