People v. Thorne
Decision Date | 07 April 2009 |
Docket Number | 2006-11898. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 02820,61 A.D.3d 708,878 N.Y.S.2d 742 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEPHEN THORNE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined, inter alia, that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant and search a vehicle the defendant was near (see People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 466-467 [1993]; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 677-678 [1989]; People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49, 54-55 [1982]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the vehicle.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to charge criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree as a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see CPL 300.50 [1]; cf. Penal Law § 165.45 [2]; People v Powers, 262 AD2d 713, 717 [1999]; People v Peterson, 216 AD2d 10 [1995]; People v Johnson, 214 AD2d 478 [1995]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Rahman
...466–467, 600 N.Y.S.2d 185, 616 N.E.2d 842; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 54–55, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745; People v. Thorne, 61 A.D.3d 708, 708, 878 N.Y.S.2d 742; People v. Whittle, 48 A.D.3d at 714–715, 852 N.Y.S.2d 300). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion ......
-
People v. Velez
...a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, arrested the occupants, and searched the vehicle); People v. Thorne, 61 AD3d 708, 878 N.Y.S.2d 742 (2d Dep't 2009) (probable cause existed to search defendant and the vehicle that was near him). People v. Hampton, 50 AD3d 1605, 857 N.Y.......
-
People v. Thorne
...N.E.2d 1092 12 N.Y.3d 929 PEOPLE v. THORNE. Court of Appeals of New York. July 13, 2009. Appeal from 2d Dept.: 61 A.D.3d 708, 878 N.Y.S.2d 742 Application in Criminal Case for Leave to Appeal Denied. (Smith, J.). ...
- People v. Smith, 1996-01856.