People v. Tanksley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tanksley

257 A.D.2d 639, 685 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 312

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 639 (People v. Tanksley) 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. Tanksley, 257 A.D.2d 639, 685 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the testimony of Detective Frank Puma improperly bolstered another detective’s eyewitness account of the defendant’s criminal activity. Detective Puma testified that after he was given a description of the narcotics-related activity and the suspect, he ran to his police car to assist in the chase. This testimony was properly admitted as a necessary explanation of the events which resulted in the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Glover, 191 AD2d 582; People v Byrd, 187 AD2d 724). Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the testimony of Detective Frank Puma improperly bolstered another detective’s eyewitness account of the defendant’s criminal activity. Detective Puma testified that after he was given a description of the narcotics-related activity and the suspect, he ran to his police car to assist in the chase. This testimony was properly admitted as a necessary explanation of the events which resulted in the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Glover, 191 AD2d 582; People v Byrd, 187 AD2d 724). Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 639, 685 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tanksley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack