People v. Bell
| Decision Date | 11 April 1995 |
| Citation | 625 N.Y.S.2d 893,214 A.D.2d 353 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bernard BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
N. Strohmeyer, for respondent.
F.A. Gallagher, for defendant-appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J., at suppression hearing; Mary McGowan Davis, J., at trial and sentence), rendered December 2, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
Assuming, as the People conceded at the suppression hearing, that they were required to give CPL 710.30(1)(b) notice of the undercover officer's confirmatory drive-by identification of defendant, their failure to do so did not also require suppression of the undercover officer's subsequent station house identification, for which the People did give notice, or his in-court identification, since notice of the station house identification gave defendant ample opportunity to seek its suppression, and that of any in-court identification as tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial police activity including other viewings (People v. Tatum, 205 A.D.2d 397, 613 N.Y.S.2d 391, lv. denied, 83 N.Y.2d 1008, 616 N.Y.S.2d 489, 640 N.E.2d 157).
Having failed to raise any objection with respect to the trial court's decision to take a brief recess immediately upon observing a juror who "seemed to be dozing", or with respect to the hearing court's decision to close the courtroom only for the testimony of an officer who was engaged in ongoing undercover work, defendant has not preserved these claims for appellate review (CPL 470.05[2] and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carrasco
...718, 602 N.Y.S.2d 816, 622 N.E.2d 317 (1993); People v. Martinez, 203 A.D.2d 212, 611 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1st Dept., 1994); People v. Bell, 214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 893, N.Y.L.J., April 11, 1995, p. 25, col. 5), the Court of Appeals has announced the need for strict compliance with the provis......
-
People v. Alvarado
...failure to provide timely CPL 710.30 notice with respect to a photo identification, to wit, preclusion of that evidence (People v. Bell, 214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 840, 634 N.Y.S.2d 449, 658 N.E.2d 227), leaving unaffected the lineup identification, which had bee......
- People v. Simpson
- People v. Bell