From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Skokan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 6, 1975
50 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Opinion

November 6, 1975


Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County, rendered August 13, 1974, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (two counts) and possession of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances. On this appeal defendant contends (1) that the search warrant upon which contraband material was obtained from her apartment was issued without probable cause; (2) that an admission of her codefendant husband into evidence was without notice in accordance with the provisions of CPL 710.30; and (3) that she was denied a fair trial. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed. The warrant in question authorized the search of premises occupied by defendant's husband and was issued to discover and seize a nine millimeter handgun believed to have been used as a murder weapon. The affidavits supporting the warrant were made by named witnesses who had observed a nine millimeter handgun in the possession of defendant's husband about one week prior to the victim's death. These affidavits and additional supporting documents established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant (United States v Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102; People v Marshall, 13 N.Y.2d 28). Accordingly, the contraband material actually discovered in the course of that search was properly seized (People v Moss, 34 A.D.2d 986). The purported admission made by the codefendant was first elicited by the People as part of their rebuttal case against the defendant's husband upon the question of his credibility. Under the circumstances, such testimony was clearly admissible (Harris v New York, 401 U.S. 222) and CPL 710.30 was not applicable. Defendant's contention that she was denied a fair trial is totally without merit, and the various assertions of error, if indeed they could be considered error, would not be of any significance in the face of such overwhelming proof of guilt (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P.J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Skokan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 6, 1975
50 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)
Case details for

People v. Skokan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NANCY A. SKOKAN…

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

Date published: Nov 6, 1975

Citations

50 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Citing Cases

People v. Webb

By failing to object on the ground that he did not receive statutory notice (CPL 710.30), defendant waived…

People v. Valle

Of course, there is always the possibility that the People do not intend to use these statements at trial or…