People v. Atkins
| Decision Date | 29 May 2012 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith ATKINS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David E. A. Crowley of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered July 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The evidence showed that in an attempt to avoid apprehension,defendant knocked over an officer causing her injury and placed bags of heroin into his mouth while he ran away. Such evidence supported the conclusion that defendant suppressed the bags of heroin by “an act of concealment” because he believed they would be used “in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding” (Penal Law § 215.40[2] ). There is no requirement that the evidence was permanently destroyed, or that it was discarded and never recovered ( see People v. Hafeez, 100 N.Y.2d 253, 259–260, 762 N.Y.S.2d 572, 792 N.E.2d 1060 [2003];People v. Shoga, 89 A.D.3d 1225, 1228–1229, 933 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 886, 939 N.Y.S.2d 756, 963 N.E.2d 133 [2012] ).
Defendant's argument that there was no proof that he understood that the people chasing him were police officers, lacks merit. The jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant acted to avoid arrest for a drug offense. Here, after the non-uniformed officer displayed his badge, defendant ran around him and fled, and put narcotics into his mouth which he was forced to spit out upon being apprehended. Such conduct is consistent with someone trying to avoid being arrested and conceal evidence. Furthermore, that the evidence was suppressed only for a short period of time is of no moment, as the statute does not contain a minimum requisite time period that the evidence has to be concealed ( see also People v. Davis–Ivery, 59 A.D.3d 853, 855, 873 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2009] ).
Although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zachary
...Parker , 148 A.D.3d at 1585, 50 N.Y.S.3d 211 ; see People v. Eaglesgrave , 108 A.D.3d 434, 434, 968 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; cf. People v. Atkins , 95 A.D.3d 731, 731, 945 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; People v. Davis–Ivery , 59 A.D.3d 853, 873 N.Y.S.2d 777 ; People v. Green , 54 A.D.3d 603, 603–604, 863 N.Y.S.2d 437......
-
People v. Parker
...accomplished an act of concealment inasmuch as he dropped the items onto the floor in plain sight of the officers (cf. People v. Atkins, 95 A.D.3d 731, 731, 945N.Y.S.2d 82, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 994, 951 N.Y.S.2d 470, 975 N.E.2d 916 ). We further conclude, however, that there is legally suff......
- People v. Poston
-
People v. Nelson
...defendant destroyed his own phone because he believed it contained evidence that would be used against him (see People v. Atkins, 95 A.D.3d 731, 945 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 994, 951 N.Y.S.2d 470, 975 N.E.2d 916 [2012] ). With regard to the weapon conviction, the ev......