People v. Tramell
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
| Citation | 152 A.D.2d 989,543 N.Y.S.2d 596 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward TRAMELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard Baumgarten, Buffalo, for appellant.
Peter L. Broderick, by Claude Joerg, Lockport, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, PINE, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the warrant to search the premises at 1112 Ferry Avenue was overbroad. The warrant specified that 1112 Ferry Avenue was an apartment house and the area to be searched included the rear entrance way and basement. The police, in searching these areas, seized controlled substances. The description in the warrant, along with its supporting affidavit, sufficiently delineate the area of this multiple dwelling to enable the searcher to identify the place authorized to be searched (see, People v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 333, 335, 388 N.Y.S.2d 450; cf., People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26; People v. Henley, 135 A.D.2d 1136, 523 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 897, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 523 N.E.2d 314).
Defendant further contends that the proof is insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession or sale of controlled substances because the People's proof did not establish the identity of the substances tested. We conclude that the extensive evidence of chemical analyses, including both screening and confirmatory tests, testified to by the People's forensic chemist was more than adequate to support the expert's opinion that the substances were cocaine and heroin (see, People v. Flores, 138 A.D.2d 512, 526 N.Y.S.2d 125, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 859, 532 N.Y.S.2d 509, 528 N.E.2d 899; People v. Harris, 130 A.D.2d 939, 516 N.Y.S.2d 554, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 647, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 512 N.E.2d 566). Additionally, the forensic chemist testified that prior to his use of the known standards he tested them to verify their identity (cf., People v. Branton, 67 A.D.2d 664, 412 N.Y.S.2d 35; People v. Miller, 57 A.D.2d 668, 393 N.Y.S.2d 679).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Quintana
...155 A.D.2d 895, 895, 548 N.Y.S.2d 362 [1989], lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 920, 555 N.Y.S.2d 38, 554 N.E.2d 75 [1990] ; People v. Tramell, 152 A.D.2d 989, 990, 543 N.Y.S.2d 596 [1989] ). As to defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, where, as here, an alternative v......
-
People v. Lavin
...premises in the warrants in this case was sufficiently specific to identify the place authorized to be searched (see, People v. Tramell, 152 A.D.2d 989, 543 N.Y.S.2d 596). We also reject defendant's contention that the physical evidence seized from her apartment should have been suppressed ......
-
People v. Telesco
...delineated the area of the building to enable the searcher to identify the place authorized to be searched (see, People v. Trammell, 152 A.D.2d 989, 543 N.Y.S.2d 596; see also, People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26; People v. Brooks, supra ). Accordingly, the ......
- People v. Williams