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. Robert HARVELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J., at suppression hearing; Martin Rettinger, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 7, 1993, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and promoting gambling in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, 1 1/212 to 3 years, and 6 months, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer's testimony that he observed defendant “playing a shell game” involving manipulation of bottle caps while several persons looked on, in a manner the officer recognized, in light of his training and experience, to be unlawful gambling activity, gave rise to probable cause supporting defendant's arrest for promoting gambling in the second degree (Penal Law § 225.05; see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 602, 435 N.Y.S.2d 679, 416 N.E.2d 1015; People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 216 N.E.2d 321). It is manifest from the officer's testimony, including his reference to defendant walking “away from his setup”, that defendant was the individual conducting the game by manipulating bottle caps, thereby “advancing gambling activity” (Penal Law § 225.00[4] ), and not merely acting as a “player” (Penal Law § 225.00[3] ). The officer's testimony therefore satisfied the requirement that the People offer proof of specific facts supporting the existence of probable cause, not the mere conclusion that defendant was engaged in illegal activity (People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 135, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
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 16, 2000
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)