People v. Fowler

Decision Date12 December 2012
Citation954 N.Y.S.2d 919,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545,101 A.D.3d 898
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joel FOWLER, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered November 24, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second 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 certain statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that certain statements he made to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed. However, the specific arguments asserted by the defendant on appeal to support this contention are unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Vasquez, 66 N.Y.2d 968, 970, 498 N.Y.S.2d 788, 489 N.E.2d 757,cert. denied475 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1517, 89 L.Ed.2d 916;People v. Maxis, 50 A.D.3d 922, 923, 855 N.Y.S.2d 251;People v. Rogers, 34 A.D.3d 504, 505, 824 N.Y.S.2d 121). Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing ( see *920People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d 806, 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940;People v. Cortez, 81 A.D.3d 742, 742, 916 N.Y.S.2d 176;People v. Maxis, 50 A.D.3d at 923, 855 N.Y.S.2d 251;People v. McFarlane, 18 A.D.3d 577, 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 660). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see People v. Petronio, 34 A.D.3d 602, 604, 825 N.Y.S.2d 99;People v. Miller, 268 A.D.2d 600, 600–601, 702 N.Y.S.2d 851). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to suppress the statements in question.

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by such other person. A court need not charge the defense of justification if, considering the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports it” ( People v. Ojar, 38 A.D.3d 684, 684–685, 832 N.Y.S.2d 250 [citations and internal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Heron
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 8, 2015
    ...jury regarding the justification defense, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported such an instruction (see People v. Fowler, 101 A.D.3d 898, 899, 954 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; People v. Cotsifas, 100 A.D.3d 1015, 954 N.Y.S.2d 219 ; People v. Ojar, 38 A.D.3d at 685, 832 N.Y.S.2d 250 ). The defe......
  • People v. Giddens
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 25, 2018
    ...; People v. Syville, 130 A.D.3d 658, 10 N.Y.S.3d 891 ; People v. Baranov, 121 A.D.3d 706, 707, 993 N.Y.S.2d 337 ; People v. Fowler, 101 A.D.3d 898, 899, 954 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; People v. Cotsifas, 100 A.D.3d 1015, 954 N.Y.S.2d 219 ; People v. Small, 80 A.D.3d 786, 786–787, 915 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). Th......
  • People v. Clarke
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 12, 2012
    ...recording of the complainant's 911 call on the ground that such evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay which improperly bolstered [101 A.D.3d 898]witness testimony as prior consistent statements. The tape recording of the complainant's 911 call was properly admitted. An out-of-court stat......
  • People v. Higgins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 2014
    ...by the defendant on appeal to support this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Fowler, 101 A.D.3d 898, 898, 954 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; People v. Philips, 30 A.D.3d 620, 620, 818 N.Y.S.2d 227 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Acco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT