People v. RodriguezPeople v. Rodriguez
- Reporters:
- ,
The hearing court properly denied defendants’ suppression motions. The court, which saw and heard the witnesses, credited testimony that an officer smelled and observed marijuana during a lawful traffic stop. There is no basis for disturbing the court‘s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in accepting a partial verdict as to the first-degree possession count (based on weight) and dismissing the third-degree possession count (based on intent to sell) without inquiring as to whether further deliberations on the latter charge would be fruitful (see People v Mendez, 221 AD2d 162, 163 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 923 [1996]). Nothing in the jury‘s communications with the court suggested any lack of unanimity, or need for further deliberations or guidance, regarding the first-degree count. Since the court dismissed the third-degree count (which was, in any event, a noninclusory concurrent count), defendants were not prejudiced by the court‘s termination of deliberations on that count (see People v Stewart, 210 AD2d 161 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 980 [1995]). Defendants’ argument that further deliberations on the entire case might have resulted in a different verdict as to first-degree possession is speculative.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence of either defendant. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.