People v. Estenson

• Decision Date: 12 April 1984
• Citation: People v. Estenson, 476 N.Y.S.2d 39, 101 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul William ESTENSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 39

476 N.Y.S.2d 39

101 A.D.2d 687

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Paul William ESTENSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

April 12, 1984.

Carl H. Dobozin, Buffalo, for appellant.

Richard J. Arcara by Louis Haremski, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before HANCOCK, J.P., and DENMAN, BOOMER, O'DONNELL and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

We agree with the trial court that the defendant was denied neither his statutory nor constitutional right to a speedy trial.

In sentencing the defendant, the trial court properly considered defendant's possession of cocaine even though the cocaine had been suppressed as evidence illegally obtained (seePeople v. Wright, 104 Misc.2d 911, 920-925, 429 N.Y.S.2d 993 and cases cited therein).

Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the court should have precluded the district attorney from questioning the defendant before the grand jury concerning the cocaine.As stated by the court in denying defendant's motion, the court has no power to interfere with the grand jury's function of investigating crime.Moreover, illegally obtained evidence and the fruits thereof are admissible in a grand jury proceeding (United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561, cited inPeople v. McGrath, 46 N.Y.2d 12, 22, 412 N.Y.S.2d 801, 385 N.E.2d 541;Matter...