From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J., at suppression hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentence).


After observing an individual hand defendant money in a furtive exchange for an unidentified object in an area with a high incidence of narcotics trafficking, the experienced officer had probable cause to arrest defendant ( People v. Jones, 90 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Schlaich, 218 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 994). Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied.

Defendant has failed to preserve his contention that a comment of the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial ( People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that the isolated comment constituted a fair inference to be drawn from the evidence ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).

Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1998
254 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Dukes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EARL DUKES, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 4

Citing Cases

People v. Thurman

We agree with the court that inevitable discovery doctrine applies ( see generally People v Turriago, 90 NY2d…

People v. Thompson (Willie)

The officer's subsequent demand that defendant display to the officer what he held in his hand was not…