People v. Pulido
| Decision Date | 21 March 1988 |
| Citation | 138 A.D.2d 641,526 N.Y.S.2d 224 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luis PULIDO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Kevin Casey, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Randi Fleishman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and EIBER, KOOPER and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), rendered May 10, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first 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 controvert a search warrant.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
This appeal arises out of a search, with a warrant, of a Flushing, Queens, apartment occupied by the defendant and his wife. A registered confidential informant of the United States Customs Service told an agent of the United States Customs Service that he had seen a large amount of drugs on a plexiglass table in the apartment. The informant also described the appearance of the defendant in detail, including his black eye; supplied the telephone number of the apartment which was unlisted; and described the physical layout of the apartment in detail. The agent was contacted by a New York City police officer who was investigating a related drug arrest. Together the two officers investigated the information which had been received from the confidential informant. After a confirmatory investigation, a search warrant was obtained. Upon execution of the warrant over one pound of cocaine was seized and the defendant and three others were arrested. Also seized was a triple-beam balance scale, carrying case and over $2,000 in cash.
During the search the officers found an amount of cocaine in a jacket which had been lying on a couch in the living room in the apartment. When the defendant was to be taken into custody and was ready to leave for the precinct, he asked if he could wear his jacket and selected the same one in which the cocaine had been found. The officers had done nothing to suggest to the defendant to take that particular jacket. It was a spontaneous and voluntary act.
The defendant claims error, inter alia, in the affidavits in support of the warrant. The defendant has, however, failed to show that there were any inaccuracies in the affidavits submitted by the law enforcement agents or that they were false or intentionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martinez
... ... Harris, supra, 57 N.Y.2d at 342, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205; see, People v. Rivers, supra; cf., People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 301, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245); rather it was spontaneous (see, People v. Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641, 642, 526 N.Y.S.2d 224, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 960, 534 N.Y.S.2d 674, 531 N.E.2d 306). Because this issue is largely factual and the record contains evidentiary support for County Court's finding, we should not interfere (see, People v. Maerling, supra; People v. McIntyre, 138 ... ...
-
People v. Mathurine
...553 [2d Dept. 1987]lv. denied70 N.Y.2d 939, 524 N.Y.S.2d 690, 519 N.E.2d 636 [1987] ), spontaneous statements (People v. Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641, 526 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2d Dept. 1988]lv. denied72 N.Y.2d 960, 534 N.Y.S.2d 674, 531 N.E.2d 306 [1988] ), statements made to a co-defendant which are ov......
-
People v. Little
... ... Certain traditional kinds of statements, and procedures, nevertheless, do not ordinarily require a hearing. People v. Newball, 76 N.Y.2d 587, 561 N.Y.S.2d 898, 563 N.E.2d 269. They include statements by a defendant which are clearly spontaneous (People v. Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641, 526 N.Y.S.2d 224), or are in response to a request for "pedigree" information (People v. Hester, 161 A.D.2d 665, 556 N.Y.S.2d 97); identification procedures employed by the police in cases where the parties knew each other before the incident (People v. Gissendanner, supra ), or ... ...
-
People v. Ziskin
... ... O'Doherty ... ," since defendant did not raise the issue of a lack of voluntariness. Id. at 792, 543 N.Y.S.2d 121 (citations omitted). Likewise, in People v. Pulido, 138 A.D.2d 641, 526 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2d Dept.) app. denied, 72 N.Y.2d 960, 534 N.Y.S.2d 674, 531 N.E.2d 306 (1988), the court held that compliance with the strict 15 day notice requirement is not necessary where the statement is clearly spontaneous ... In the case now before this ... ...