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. Sylvester SMALLS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J. at suppression hearing; Michael Obus, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 11, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The initial detention of defendant was based on reasonable suspicion since he fit the description provided by the undercover officer, and the circumstances ripened into probable cause when the undercover officer made a confirmatory identification. The description was sufficiently detailed and accurate and the slight discrepancy as to the description of defendant's clothing was insignificant. There was no need to call the undercover officer at the suppression hearing since there were no substantial issues presented as to the legality of defendant's arrest (People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 476 N.Y.S.2d 56, 464 N.E.2d 424, cert. denied 469 U.S. 852, 105 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed.2d 109).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Issues of credibility and identification were properly presented to the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determinations.
The court properly closed the courtroom to the general public during the undercover officer's testimony, while properly agreeing to admit persons who identified themselves as relatives and friends of defendant. The officer's testimony during the Hinton hearing showed that the officer continued to work in the area of defendant's arrest, that he had received threats in the past, that he feared for his safety and the integrity of his ongoing operations, and that he employed security precautions when appearing in court (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413).
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 12, 2002
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)