People v. Cruz

• Citation: 594 N.Y.S.2d 342,191 A.D.2d 507
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gregorio CRUZ, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 08 March 1993
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 342

594 N.Y.S.2d 342

191 A.D.2d 507

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v Gregorio CRUZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 8, 1993.

Jerome Karp, Brooklyn (Arthur S. Friedman, of counsel), for appellant.

Appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall, Laura Louise Magner, and Joseph P. Tucker, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, EIBER and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered March 20, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities and physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

As the result of a verbal altercation between the defendant and a vendor in a candy store, the defendant fired a number of shots in the direction of the vendor and hit an innocent bystander. A police detective (who, one week later, arrested the defendant) spoke with the vendor, who provided a description of the shooting and of the defendant. Four days later, an anonymous informant called the "Crime Stoppers Unit" and told the detectives that he knew the defendant and that the defendant had confessed the crime to him. The anonymous informant provided the police with the defendant's name and address and an account of the events. The police then went to that address and spoke with the defendant, but did not arrest him.

Three days later, the police learned from the same anonymous informant that the defendant was going with the informant's brother to a grocery store in Harlem to sell the murder weapon. The informant provided a description of the car they were taking and its license plate number. The detectives arrested the defendant at the grocery store immediately after he threw a black knapsack containing the cardboard carrying case of a Smith & Wesson nine millimeter semi-automatic weapon over the counter inside the store.

The defendant's contention that the hearing court improperly failed to suppress his statements or the physical evidence is without merit. A warrantless arrest, as here, may be made when the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed a crime (see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451; People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439). Further, "probable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information" (People v. Bigelow, supra, 66 N.Y.2d at 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451), provided there is a showing that the informant has some basis or knowledge for the information transmitted to the police and that the information can be relied upon by the police (see, People v. Johnson, supra, 66 N.Y.2d at 402, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439; People v. Bigelow, supra). Information given by an informant can be verified by independent police investigation which corroborates the information (see, People v. Johnson, supra; People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 594 N.Y.S.2d 679, 610 N.E.2d...