People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 November 2016 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rodney DAVIS, Also Known as Rock, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
144 A.D.3d 1188
41 N.Y.S.3d 160
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07231
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Rodney DAVIS, Also Known as Rock, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov. 3, 2016.
Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY, ROSE and MULVEY, JJ.
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered December 12, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree.
Defendant was charged with a variety of crimes based on accusations that included that he had shot three victims outside of a bar, killing one of the victims and wounding the other two.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 50 years to life in prison with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant contends that the People's CPL 710.30 notice of their intention to introduce statements made by defendant to a public servant was inadequate because it failed to provide a sufficient description of statements alleged to be made by defendant during a police interview, thus requiring the preclusion of those statements at trial. However, defendant specifically moved, pretrial, to suppress oral and written statements made during the aforementioned interview. The absence of sufficient notice does not warrant preclusion when the defendant has nevertheless made an unsuccessful suppression motion directed at the statements that were the subject of the inadequate notice (see CPL 710.30[3] ; People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 483, 522 N.Y.S.2d 498, 517 N.E.2d 213 [1987] ; People v. Banks, 77 A.D.2d 742, 743, 431 N.Y.S.2d 202 [1980] ). Moreover, at the time of the Huntley hearing, defendant acknowledged that he had received the notes describing defendant's statements at the aforementioned interview and he did not seek to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, defendant's contention that he was unable to prepare for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Scippio
-
People v. Anthony
...1154, 40 N.Y.S.3d 578 [2016], lvs. denied 29 N.Y.3d 999, 1001, 57 N.Y.S.3d 720, 80 N.E.3d 413 [2017] ; see People v. Davis, 144 A.D.3d 1188, 1189–1190, 41 N.Y.S.3d 160 [2016], lvs. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 1150, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 74 N.E.3d 681 [2017] ). Accordingly, we discern no error in the ......
-
People v. Bowes
...defendant's motion, during which it was revealed that they were actually uttered to DeMuth (see CPL 710.30[3] ; People v. Davis, 144 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 41 N.Y.S.3d 160 [2016], lvs denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 1150, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 301, 74 N.E.3d 681, 686 [2017]). In these circumstances, "[t]he i......
-
People v. Kirkley
...should be permitted to view it. Accordingly, this 99 N.Y.S.3d 504claim is unpreserved for review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Davis, 144 A.D.3d 1188, 1190, 41 N.Y.S.3d 160 [2016], lvs denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 1150, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 301,4 N.E.3d 681, 686 [2017] ). Defendant's related claim t......