People v. Sidhom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sidhom

204 A.D.2d 150, 612 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5153

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 12, 1994·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered March 30, 1992, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. We find that the People met their burden of coming forward (People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367) with evidence that the officer observed the firearm from a lawful vantage point outside the car (see, People v Cruz, 34 NY2d 362, 370), and that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the officer impermissibly leaned into the car’s interior (see, People v Aquino, 119 AD2d 464, 465-466; People v Guzman, 116 AD2d 528).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not restrict defendant’s right to impeach a trial witness on the basis of his grand jury testimony. The court simply required, as a matter of form, that the witness be confronted with specific questions and answers, rather than with his failure to volunteer unsolicited information before the grand jury (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 88-89, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, [151] 416 US 905). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered March 30, 1992, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. We find that the People met their burden of coming forward (People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367) with evidence that the officer observed the firearm from a lawful vantage point outside the car (see, People v Cruz, 34 NY2d 362, 370), and that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the officer impermissibly leaned into the car’s interior (see, People v Aquino, 119 AD2d 464, 465-466; People v Guzman, 116 AD2d 528).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not restrict defendant’s right to impeach a trial witness on the basis of his grand jury testimony. The court simply required, as a matter of form, that the witness be confronted with specific questions and answers, rather than with his failure to volunteer unsolicited information before the grand jury (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 88-89, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, [151] 416 US 905). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

People v. Sidhom, 204 A.D.2d 150, 612 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 150 (People v. Sidhom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related