People v. Tucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tucker

150 A.D.2d 177, 540 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447

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

DecidedMay 4, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 177 (People v. Tucker) 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. Tucker, 150 A.D.2d 177, 540 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from the judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J., at suppression hearing and trial), rendered June 16, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]) and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument (Penal Law § 220.45), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 3Vi to 7 years and one year, respectively, is unanimously held in abeyance, the suppression determination is vacated, on the law, the facts, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and the matter remanded for a new suppression hearing.

After examining the record of the Mapp hearing and the relevant testimony at trial, we are persuaded that this matter [178]*178is appropriate for the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and remand for a de novo suppression hearing to explore factual discrepancies which require resolution before a proper determination on the motion to suppress may be made. Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Appeal from the judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J., at suppression hearing and trial), rendered June 16, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]) and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument (Penal Law § 220.45), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 3Vi to 7 years and one year, respectively, is unanimously held in abeyance, the suppression determination is vacated, on the law, the facts, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and the matter remanded for a new suppression hearing.

After examining the record of the Mapp hearing and the relevant testimony at trial, we are persuaded that this matter [178]*178is appropriate for the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and remand for a de novo suppression hearing to explore factual discrepancies which require resolution before a proper determination on the motion to suppress may be made. Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 177, 540 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tucker-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack