Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricardo THEN, a/k/a Richardo Than, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered February 15, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the guns found in the livery cab in which the defendant and his cohort were riding as passengers. The police had reasonable suspicion to investigate and make a limited protective search of the vehicle in light of the information provided to them by a woman at the scene that there had been a robbery and that the defendant and his cohort had guns (see, People v. Carvey, 89 N.Y.2d 707, 710, 657 N.Y.S.2d 879, 680 N.E.2d 150; People v. Vehap, 234 A.D.2d 210, 652 N.Y.S.2d 8, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 865, 661 N.Y.S.2d 192, 683 N.E.2d 1066; People v. Cisnero, 226 A.D.2d 279, 641 N.Y.S.2d 286, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1020, 651 N.Y.S.2d 19, 673 N.E.2d 1246). The woman's account to the police was also sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant (see, People v. Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463, 467, 600 N.Y.S.2d 185, 616 N.E.2d 842).
Evidence of the criminal conduct of a severed codefendant was properly admitted as highly probative of defendant's possession (see, People v. Sanford, 205 A.D.2d 477, 614 N.Y.S.2d 13, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 910, 621 N.Y.S.2d 527, 645 N.E.2d 1227) as well as being necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest (see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153).
The trial court properly instructed the jury on the automobile presumption with respect to both guns and included the livery driver exception (see, PL § 265.15[3] ). Although the cab driver was not a defendant, defendant's trial strategy of imputing possession to the driver rendered instruction on the exception necessary to the jury's understanding of the presumption (People v. Hines, 173 A.D.2d 730, 731, 570 N.Y.S.2d 613). Defendant's remaining claims are unpreserved and without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 05, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)