People v. Casanova
| Decision Date | 12 April 1990 |
| Citation | 160 A.D.2d 394,554 N.Y.S.2d 21 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert CASANOVA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
P. Milazzo, D.A. Osborn, New York City, for respondent.
S.M. Statsinger, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and CARRO, MILONAS, WALLACH and SMITH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Luis Neco, J., at Mapp and Huntly hearing; Thomas B. Galligan, J., at sentence), rendered December 21, 1987, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (PL 265.02), and sentencing him to a term of incarceration of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
Police officers testified for the People that they had been approached in the early morning hours by two women, who informed them that two men sitting in a white Cadillac at a specific location off of the FDR Drive had a gun. Acting on this information, the officers approached the car and conducted a pat down of the occupants to determine if they possessed guns. Defendant exclaimed that he had not taken the gun out of the trunk. Police then opened the trunk, where a gun with three live rounds was recovered. Subsequent to this a bullet was recovered from defendant's pocket.
Defendant, in his testimony, claimed that he had never made the inculpatory statement. He contended that he had unwittingly offered a ride to two prostitutes and, that when he dropped them off unknown to him one of them had left behind a purse. Defendant also claimed that neither the car nor the gun was his.
We note that the People on their direct case did not elicit any testimony concerning a purse, or any uncharged crime. The only issue of merit concerns the officers' testimony concerning what the two women--who did not testify--had told them. Defendant challenges this testimony as being impermissible hearsay, and as introducing evidence of uncharged crimes. However, this testimony was properly admitted as background evidence to explain why the officers approached defendant in the manner they did (People v. Castro, 101 A.D.2d 392, 475 N.Y.S.2d 840) and to preclude speculation as to the purpose of police activity (People v. Hernandez, 139 A.D.2d 472, 477, 527 N.Y.S.2d 404). We are of the view that any potential prejudice was avoided by the court's repeated limiting instructions. Further, we note that the People did not on their direct case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quartararo v. Hanslmaier
...fact." Watson v. Scully, No. 89 Civ. 7840, 1994 WL 177286, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1994) (Ward, J.) (citing People v. Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 554 N.Y.S.2d 21, 22 (1st Dep't 1990) and People v. Hernandez, A.D.2d 472, 527 N.Y.S.2d 404, 407 (1st Dep't 1988)). A similar rule has been recognize......
-
DeArmas v. People of State of NY
...556 N.Y.S.2d 564, 564-65 (1st Dep't), lv. denied, 76 N.Y.2d 866, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 561 N.E.2d 905 (1990); People v. Cassanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 554 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (1st Dep't), lv. denied, 76 N.Y.2d 786, 559 N.Y.S.2d 991, 559 N.E.2d 685 3 Contrary to petitioner's claim of a good record, the......
-
People v. Kadarko
...N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 [1987]; People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320 [1977]; People v. Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 554 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 786, 559 N.Y.S.2d 991, 559 N.E.2d 685 [1990] ). Huang's testimony explained why he was able to id......
-
People v. Lopez
...to be considered in determining whether to indict defendant and were only admitted to explain police activity (see, People v. Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 554 N.Y.S.2d 21, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 786, 559 N.Y.S.2d 991, 559 N.E.2d 685). In regard to the ambiguous question from the prosecutor, "Are......