People v. Valverde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valverde

197 A.D.2d 920, 604 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9394

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 920 (People v. Valverde) 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. Valverde, 197 A.D.2d 920, 604 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for review his contentions that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the identification testimony of the victim and that the prosecutor erred when he cross-examined defendant and defendant’s wife concerning their failure to report the alibi information to the police. We decline to exercise our jurisdiction to review those issues in the interest of justice.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant contends that the application for the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because defendant’s statement to the police recited in the affidavit in support of the application was involuntarily given. Even if defendant’s statement is excluded from the supporting affidavit, there are sufficient facts remaining to establish probable cause.

Finally, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for review his contentions that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the identification testimony of the victim and that the prosecutor erred when he cross-examined defendant and defendant’s wife concerning their failure to report the alibi information to the police. We decline to exercise our jurisdiction to review those issues in the interest of justice.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant contends that the application for the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because defendant’s statement to the police recited in the affidavit in support of the application was involuntarily given. Even if defendant’s statement is excluded from the supporting affidavit, there are sufficient facts remaining to establish probable cause.

Finally, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 920, 604 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valverde-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack