New York Court of Appeals, 1980

People v. Etoll

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 16, 1980 · Cooke, Fuchsberg, Gabrielli, Jasen, Jones, Meyer, Wachtler

51 N.Y.2d 840; 413 N.E.2d 1165; 433 N.Y.S.2d 750; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2694

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Mosquito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Persen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Cureaux (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Shepard (New York Supreme Court 1996)
People v. Rivas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Clemente (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Waugh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Montgomery (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1985)
People v. GonzaLez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
People v. Regnet (New York Supreme Court 1981)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

*841The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

At trial, two notebooks containing prostitution records were admitted into evidence against defendant. On this appeal defendant contends that these notebooks, which were seized by a police officer who was lawfully in her apartment for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, should not have been admitted into evidence under the "plain view” doctrine because the incriminatory nature of this evidence was not "immediately apparent”. (See Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466.) While we agree with defendant that the outward appearance of the notebooks in question was such that a police officer, no matter how expert, could not have recognized them as evidence of a crime, we must, nonetheless, affirm defendant’s conviction. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that there is no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to suppress the notebooks in question might have contributed to defendant’s conviction. Thus, in our view, the error asserted is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230.)

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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