People v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 15 October 1991 |
| Citation | 176 A.D.2d 814,575 N.Y.S.2d 138 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edgar CAMPBELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stuart D. Rubin, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Peter A. Weinstein and Caroline R. Donhauser, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, ROSENBLATT and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered December 8, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
We find that the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the weapon found in his vehicle. The initial stop of the defendant's vehicle for a traffic violation was proper (see, People v. Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765, 516 N.Y.S.2d 792). Furthermore, the police officer's act of observing the interior of the vehicle with the aid of a flashlight to reveal evidence that would have been in plain view but for the darkness was not an unreasonable intrusion (see, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39 amended on other grounds 35 N.Y.2d 708, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641, 320 N.E.2d 274; People v. Bute, 172 A.D.2d 550, 567 N.Y.S.2d 877; People v. Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59, 549 N.Y.S.2d 515). Upon discovering the sawed-off barrel of a shotgun on the front seat, the police had probable cause to search the passenger compartment to uncover further evidence of contraband or of the commission of a crime (see, People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40; People v. Orlando, 56 N.Y.2d 441, 452 N.Y.S.2d 559, 438 N.E.2d 92; People v. Hicks, 135 A.D.2d 651, 522 N.Y.S.2d 227).
The defendant contends that the court erred in denying his request to preclude the testimony of three police officers as a sanction for the prosecution's loss of Rosario material. A narrative of the incident, which was prepared by one of the officers for the purpose of a request for recognition of excellent police duty, had been destroyed. It is within the discretion of the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCoy
...e.g., People v. Pincus, 184 A.D.2d 666, 584 N.Y.S.2d 866, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 976, 591 N.Y.S.2d 145, 605 N.E.2d 881; People v. Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814, 575 N.Y.S.2d 138). Consequently, we find no basis to disturb County Court's denial of defendant's suppression In addition, defendant cont......
-
People v. Beriguette
...N.Y.2d 362, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39, amended on other grounds 35 N.Y.2d 708, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641, 320 N.E.2d 274; People v. Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814, 575 N.Y.S.2d 138; People v. Bute, 172 A.D.2d 550, 567 N.Y.S.2d 877). Although the officer looked into the car because the complainant in......
- People v. Campanella
-
People v. Matarrese
...their failure to preserve Rosario material (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814, 575 N.Y.S.2d 138; cf., People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471). In the present case, the court's adverse infe......