People v. Corse

• Decision Date: 25 May 2010
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Eric CORSE, also known as Erik Corse, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

902 N.Y.S.2d 599
73 A.D.3d 1208

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Eric CORSE, also known as Erik Corse, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 25, 2010.

902 N.Y.S.2d 599

Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., STEVEN W. FISHER, ANITA R. FLORIO, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

73 A.D.3d 1208

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honoroff, J.), rendered June 30, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), attempted criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, hindering prosecution in the third degree, and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing

902 N.Y.S.2d 600

sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to an informant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied, after a Massiah hearing ( see Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246), that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to an informant while in jail. The fact that the informant had a prior cooperation agreement with the People and had provided information in other cases did not automatically make him an agent of the prosecution with regard to this

73 A.D.3d 1209

case ( see People v. Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d 333, 392 N.Y.S.2d 606, 360 N.E.2d 1306; People v. Fernandez, 23 A.D.3d 317, 318, 806 N.Y.S.2d 476; People v. Tam, 260 A.D.2d 242, 688 N.Y.S.2d 521). The informant acted independently and on his own initiative. The prosecution was a passive recipient of the information ( see People v. Cardona, 41 N.Y.2d at 335, 392 N.Y.S.2d 606, 360 N.E.2d 1306).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d...