From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Malcolm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1988
143 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Summary

In People v Malcolm (143 A.D.2d 1049 [2d Dept 1988]) and People v Torres (133 A.D.2d 713 [2d Dept 1987]), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that persons charged with possessory offenses had no standing to challenge the seizure of such contraband from areas where they could not show any expectation of privacy.

Summary of this case from People v. Lopez

Opinion

October 31, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

Since the defendant had no privacy right in the apartment where he was arrested, he lacked the requisite standing to contest the search of the premises (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159; People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160).

We further conclude that the trial court's charge as to circumstantial evidence adequately apprised the jury of the standard to be utilized in reaching its verdict (see, People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441-442; People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024; People v Borazzo, 137 A.D.2d 96, 100-101; People v Fernandez, 137 A.D.2d 709, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1026).

While the court's instruction addressed to the defendant's failure to testify in his own behalf at trial was improper (see, People v Reid, 135 A.D.2d 753, 754), reversal is not warranted since there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction and, consequently, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v Kimbrough, 134 A.D.2d 618, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1007; People v Morris, 129 A.D.2d 591; cf., People v Reid, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Malcolm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1988
143 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

In People v Malcolm (143 A.D.2d 1049 [2d Dept 1988]) and People v Torres (133 A.D.2d 713 [2d Dept 1987]), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that persons charged with possessory offenses had no standing to challenge the seizure of such contraband from areas where they could not show any expectation of privacy.

Summary of this case from People v. Lopez
Case details for

People v. Malcolm

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARL MALCOLM, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Salcedo

We note that the defendant was represented by retained counsel of his own choice and the defendant insisted…

People v. Lopez

These same issues and cases have recently been addressed by the Second and Fourth Departments of the…