From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mangarella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1993
190 A.D.2d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 8, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Based upon the testimony of a police officer — the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing — the hearing court upheld the seizure of guns from the defendant's homemade vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement (see, People v Orlando, 56 N.Y.2d 441, 446). This determination was proper (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759).

There is no merit to the defendant's claim that reversible error occurred when the prosecutor elicited testimony regarding his alleged possession of a weapon some months prior to the instant offense. This testimony, he contends, constituted evidence of an uncharged crime. However, the prior observation of the handgun in question was "inextricably intertwined" with the subsequent seizure of the gun in the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's arrest (see, People v Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774, 775; People v Blair, 186 A.D.2d 665; People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529; People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364). Such evidence was properly introduced to prove the defendant's ultimate possession of a weapon which he claimed he had never seen before.

The trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for a continuance did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 494; People v Hernandez, 146 A.D.2d 646; People v Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699; People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473).

We find that the court erred in admitting testimony on the People's direct case that the defendant remained silent when a police officer asked him if a bag he had been carrying contained handguns (see, People v De George, 73 N.Y.2d 614). Nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Basora, 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mangarella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1993
190 A.D.2d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Mangarella

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH T. MANGARELLA…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

People v. Webb

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against…

People v. Vonancken (Heinz)

In any event, the testimony was properly admitted. The conduct observed was "inextricably interwoven with the…