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. Julius YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered July 8, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's inquiry concerning a search warrant executed on another floor of the same building almost simultaneously with the search of defendant's apartment. Defendant received ample latitude in which to elicit facts relating to the other search, to attack the credibility of the police witnesses, and to make the argument that the drugs attributed by the police to defendant may have actually been recovered from the other apartment. Accordingly, there was no impairment of defendant's rights to present a defense and confront witnesses (see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 [1986]; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).
The court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence that during the search of defendant's apartment, the police saw defendant throwing something out of a window. This testimony was probative of defendant's guilt.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 22, 2005
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)