People v Poole

Annotate this Case
People v Poole 2010 NY Slip Op 02853 [72 AD3d 460] April 6, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Odell Poole, Appellant.

—[*1] Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York (Jasand P. Mock of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at suppression hearing; James A. Yates, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 28, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 4½ years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. The undercover officer gave a detailed and accurate description of defendant's clothing, including the particular brand name of defendant's jacket, and identified him no more than 10 minutes after the sale.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to question defendant's witness regarding the circumstances under which the witness offered, but then declined, to testify for defendant in the grand jury. The extent to which these circumstances affected the witness's credibility was a matter for the jury.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The description was sufficiently specific to, at the very least, provide reasonable suspicion, given the very close [*2]temporal and spatial proximity between the sale and the arrest (see e.g. People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 870 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.