Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 24, 1998

253 A.D.2d 692; 679 N.Y.S.2d 360; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

ANGONA, MATTHEW J., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Angona (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Angona (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Amaya (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Amaya (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Canteen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 13, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress property was properly denied. Since defendant made no application to reopen the Mapp hearing during trial, the court was under no obligation to reopen the hearing sua sponte (see, CPL 710.40 [4]). Defendant’s allusions during trial to conflicts between hearing and trial testimony did not constitute a request for a reopened hearing. In any event, even in light of the purported conflicts in testimony revealed during trial, there was probable cause to search defendant.

The prosecutor’s statements made during summation did not shift the burden of proof to defendant, and were based on the evidence and responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.