People v. Elliot
| Decision Date | 07 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Ind 4594/16,1890/18 |
| Citation | 2021 NY Slip Op 05401 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Elliot, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 14316 Case No. 2019-5051 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (V. Marika Meis of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton González, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J. at suppression hearing; Althea E. Drysdale, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered May 30, 2019, as amended October 15 2019, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of three years and 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. At a homeless shelter with an ongoing problem with drug activity, an officer with the Department of Homeless Services saw defendant drop from his pocket a large quantity of thumbnail sized plastic bags. Although the bags appeared to be empty, the officer knew by way of her training and experience that these bags were used to package drugs. This provided probable cause for the arrest of defendant on a drug paraphernalia charge (see Penal Law § 220.50[2]), which led to the recovery of drugs as incident to that arrest. Defendant has suggested no innocent explanation for his possession of such a large quantity of bags of that type, and, in any event, "probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or the exclusion of every reasonable innocent explanation" (People v Lewis, 50 A.D.3d 595, 595 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 790 [2008]). Additionally, the same officer had arrested defendant a week earlier for drug possession.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in discharging a sworn juror. The record supports the court's finding that the juror did not sufficiently speak or understand English to serve as a juror. In particular, the juror was unable to understand, despite the court's introductory remarks, that his jury service would last more than one day. Furthermore, the court was able to observe the juror's limited command of...
To continue reading
Request your trial