From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bilbatua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 13, 1994
208 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 13, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).


The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the contents of a paper bag clutched between defendant's legs which was seized at the time the arrest was made and before the police had an opportunity to handcuff defendant (compare, People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309, with People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 454).

Defendant's claim that count two of his indictment was duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant never raised the issue at trial (see, People v. Narayan, 54 N.Y.2d 106, 114). Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice where the defendant, although possessing several crack vials in a bag, and one vial in his mouth, received the proper jury charge clearly demonstrating that only one count of possession was charged, not two, and that to convict, defendant had to possess both items (compare, People v. Stanley, 173 A.D.2d 658).

While the trial court's response to the jury's request for the reading of the police officer's entire testimony taken one day prior should have been framed differently, nonetheless, the court instructed the jury that it could have anything it wanted (see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).

The People improperly elicited testimony, which they used on summation, on an uncharged crime (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242). However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object at trial (see, People v. Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016). Were we to review this claim in the interest of justice, reversal would not be warranted considering the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt based upon the direct sale to an undercover police officer (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Similarly, the court corrected any error on the People's summation by properly charging the jury.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Bilbatua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 13, 1994
208 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Bilbatua

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN BILBATUA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 13, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 162

Citing Cases

People v. Wylie

Relying on People v. Gokey (supra), defendant argues, and the suppression court agreed, that no exigency…

People v. Retti

Although the subject count against defendant could have been construed, under the fact pattern, as permitting…