People v. Moshier
| Decision Date | 09 October 2013 |
| Citation | 110 A.D.3d 832,972 N.Y.S.2d 675,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06592 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Thomas A. MOSHIER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
110 A.D.3d 832
972 N.Y.S.2d 675
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06592
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Thomas A. MOSHIER, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 9, 2013.
[972 N.Y.S.2d 676]
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
[972 N.Y.S.2d 677]
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered May 27, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Greller, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, and the denial, without a hearing (Forman, J.), of that branch of the same motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested following two audiotaped drug purchases by a confidential informant and a search of the defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant, during which a shotgun and a large number of glassine envelopes containing heroin were recovered.
The defendant's contention that the County Court should have suppressed the proffered identification testimony of the confidential informant based on certain allegedly suggestive statements made by a police officer to the informant before and after he viewed a photo array is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to advance his current arguments at the suppression hearing ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Acevedo, 84 A.D.3d 1390, 925 N.Y.S.2d 523;People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178;People v. Carter, 44 A.D.3d 677, 843 N.Y.S.2d 381). In any event, the contentions are without merit ( see People v. Guitierres, 82 A.D.3d 1116, 919 N.Y.S.2d 211;People v. Negron, 238 A.D.2d 444, 656 N.Y.S.2d 355). As the defendant failed to rebut the People's initial showing that the police conduct was reasonable and that the pretrial identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, the People were not required to establish an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Locenitt
...photo array to the complainant was unduly suggestive is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d 832, 832, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). In any event, his contention is without merit (see People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d at 832, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).The defendant......
-
People v. Baker
...U.S. 154, 155–156, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 ; People v. Lassiter, 151 A.D.3d 885, 886, 57 N.Y.S.3d 194 ; People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d 832, 833, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). The defendant's contention that certain trial evidence called into question the truthfulness of the affidavit submit......
-
People v. Watson
...reckless disregard for the truth (see People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181, 186, 264 N.Y.S.2d 243, 211 N.E.2d 644 ; People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d 832, 833, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; People v. McGeachy, 74 A.D.3d 989, 990, 902 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; People v. Novick, 293 A.D.2d 692, 692, 740 N.Y.S.2d 641 ). T......
-
People v. Stevens
...is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hall, 145 A.D.3d 915, 916, 44 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; People v. Moshier, 110 A.D.3d 832, 833, 972 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; People v. Chase, 101 A.D.3d 1141, 955 N.Y.S.2d 891 ) and, in any event, without merit. Penal Law § 70.04(1)(b)(iv) provi......