PEOPLE v. TANKSLEY (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles TANKSLEY, Appellant.

Decided: January 19, 1999

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.

Sally Wasserman, Westbury, N.Y., for appellant. Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jodi A. Danzig of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the testimony of Detective Frank Puma improperly bolstered another detective's eyewitness account of the defendant's criminal activity. Detective Puma testified that after he was given a description of the narcotics-related activity and the suspect, he ran to his police car to assist in the chase. This testimony was properly admitted as a necessary explanation of the events which resulted in the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Glover, 191 A.D.2d 582, 595 N.Y.S.2d 215; People v. Byrd, 187 A.D.2d 724, 590 N.Y.S.2d 511).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network