People v. Woodward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodward

38 A.D.2d 735, 329 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5607

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 735 (People v. Woodward) 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. Woodward, 38 A.D.2d 735, 329 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 14, 1969, convicting him of attempted possession of narcotics as a felony (former Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 3), upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to the Criminal Term for proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein set forth; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. In our view, the decisions of the Criminal Term on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and on his motion for reargument do not set forth sufficient findings of fact to enable us to determine whether there were “ constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds ” for the frisk conducted in this case (Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 64). Moreover, the decisions fail to provide any factual basis for the conclusion that the officer who frisked defendant could “reasonably suspect(s) that he * * * [was] in danger of life or limb ” (Code Crim. Pro., § 180-a, subd. 2). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, 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 Court, Kings County, rendered February 14, 1969, convicting him of attempted possession of narcotics as a felony (former Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 3), upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to the Criminal Term for proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein set forth; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. In our view, the decisions of the Criminal Term on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and on his motion for reargument do not set forth sufficient findings of fact to enable us to determine whether there were “ constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds ” for the frisk conducted in this case (Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 64). Moreover, the decisions fail to provide any factual basis for the conclusion that the officer who frisked defendant could “reasonably suspect(s) that he * * * [was] in danger of life or limb ” (Code Crim. Pro., § 180-a, subd. 2). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 735, 329 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodward-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack