People v. Stroman
| Decision Date | 03 December 1981 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry STROMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Susan Manca, New York City, of counsel; William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Robert M. Carmen, New York City, of counsel (Joyce P. Adolfsen, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him on the brief, Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty.), for respondent.
Before MURPHY, P. J., and BIRNS, SANDLER, ROSS and LUPIANO, JJ.
The critical issue on this appeal is whether the testimony of the police officers is incredible as a matter of law and represents a prevarication tailored to nullify constitutional objections. Both the justice presiding over the suppression hearing and the jury at trial, as finders of fact, found the police officers to be credible witnesses and conversely found the defense version of the seizure of the two weapons--a gun and a knife, to be not credible.
Police officer Leon testified that he and officer Tall were confronted by two women at 6:45 p. m. on September 11, 1978, one of whom identified herself as Evelyn Eley and claimed that she had just escaped from being held prisoner by a man in his room at the Penn View Hotel around the corner. Exhibiting bruises on her face which did not appear to the officer to be new, she related that she was beaten by the man because he wanted her to engage in prostitution for him. She identified the other woman as a relative and asked police to help her get her things from the room and to arrest the man. When asked, she declared that the man was known to carry a gun. The officers "radioed in", followed the woman to the hotel and ascertained that room 309 was registered to the defendant which fact was theretofore represented to them by Ms. Eley. The four went to the room. Officer Tall and the other woman stood down the hall while officer Leon stood behind Ms. Eley as she knocked on the door. She identified herself by her nickname "Coffee" and defendant partially opened the door some five to six inches wide from the bed in which he was resting. The head of the bed was against the same wall as the door and was some two inches from the doorknob enabling defendant to open the door from the bed. Defendant was holding onto the doorknob with his right hand while officer Leon who had moved Ms. Eley to the side was directly in front of the partially opened door with his hand on the door. The uniformed officer identified himself as a police officer and requested to speak to defendant. Defendant responded with a request to close the door so he could get dressed. Officer Leon directed defendant to get dressed with the door open to which procedure defendant objected. At this point in the brief conversation, officer Leon noticed that defendant in rolling over to answer the door had pulled the covering sheet and blanket with him exposing a gun and an open gravity knife on the right side of the bed. Officer Leon alerted his partner that defendant had a gun, drew his own weapon and pushed the door fully open. Officer Leon further testified that the room was illuminated by a light source within the room. The illumination was provided according to officer Leon by light coming in a window with the shades up and a ceiling light. He described the room as "a small room," approximately ten by twelve feet. Both officers now entered the room, seized the weapons, and arrested defendant. Officer Tall searched the clothes defendant was putting on. The police did not search any other part of the room.
Officer Tall corroborated officer Leon's story. He testified that the room was illuminated by medium light with most of the light coming from the hallway. Inferentially this supported officer Leon's statement that the room also was illuminated by a light source from within. The proximity of the bed to the door and the size of the room when viewed in conjunction with the recollection of the police officers as to the degree of illumination within the room and the sources of that illumination are telling circumstances. It is important to note that officer Leon's testimony as to the light source was not contradicted by officer Tall. Tall never testified that the room was illuminated only by light from the hallway.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitley v. Ercole
...contrary to experience, or self-contradictory.” Batista, 235 A.D.2d at 632, 652 N.Y.S.2d 645 ( quoting People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373, 444 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1st Dep't 1981)). Mere inconsistencies in a witness's testimony will not render that testimony incredible as a matter of law. Peopl......
-
People v. Shedrick
...of belief because it is manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373, 444 N.Y.S.2d 463). Credibility is best determined by the trier of fact who has the advantage of observing the witnesses and, necessarily, ......
-
People v. Jones
...is in a superior position with respect to that aspect than an appellate court which reviews but the printed record" (People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 372, 444 N.Y.S.2d 463). We conclude that these questions were properly permitted (People v. Ventimiglia, supra, 52 N.Y.2d at p. 361, 438 N.Y......
-
People v. Wrigglesworth
...v. Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, quoting People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373, 444 N.Y.S.2d 463). Here, however, the state of the witnesses' intoxication and its effect upon their ability to observe and recall dist......