From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 9, 1994
205 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 9, 1994

Appeal from the County Court of Tioga County (Callanan, Sr., J.).


We affirm defendant's judgment of conviction for the following reasons: having withdrawn his motion to suppress physical evidence and having failed to renew the motion in accordance with CPL 710.60 (1), defendant waived his right to the suppression of the physical evidence seized during the search of his home (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 121; People v. Abdullah, 164 A.D.2d 260; People v. Wachtel, 124 A.D.2d 613, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 835) ; that by failing to make his motion to dismiss the indictment upon the claimed denial of the right to a speedy trial in writing, defendant waived this claim (see, People v Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200, 204); that County Court did not err in denying defendant's request to charge the "jury nullification doctrine" (see, People v. Goetz, 73 N.Y.2d 751, 752, cert denied 489 U.S. 1053; People v. Fields, 160 A.D.2d 606, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 788) ; that the State may impose criminal sanctions for the possession of marihuana within the privacy of the home (see, People v. Shepard, 50 N.Y.2d 640, 646); that defendant's other contentions lack merit.

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court of Tioga County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).


Summaries of

People v. Rodrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 9, 1994
205 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Rodrick

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EMANUEL RODRICK, JR.…

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

Date published: Jun 9, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
613 N.Y.S.2d 445

Citing Cases

Zorn v. Howe

Nor are we persuaded that chapter 177 violates respondent's right to privacy. While people have a privacy…