People v. Dennis
| Decision Date | 01 December 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sanford K. DENNIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael F. Mullen, Huntington, for appellant and Sanford K. Dennis, pro se.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Eric Besso, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered May 15, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 identification testimony and physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his arrest was not based upon probable cause and, therefore, the physical evidence obtained from him should have been suppressed as the fruits of an illegal arrest. We disagree. The defendant was seized by the arresting officer along the burglar's anticipated escape route. The defendant matched the complainant's general physical description of the burglar, which included sex, race and size, and was carrying distinctive clothing worn by the burglar during the commission of the crime, to wit, a black jacket and a light-colored golf cap (see, United States v. Fay, 240 F.Supp. 591; People v. Chapman, 103 A.D.2d 494, 480 N.Y.S.2d 891; cf. People v. Riddick, 110 A.D.2d 787, 487 N.Y.S.2d 855). The defendant also had in his possession a screwdriver. According to the complainant, he had informed the arresting officer and his partner, prior to their search for the perpetrator, that when he confronted the intruder inside his home, the intruder had produced a sharp instrument from his back pocket and used it to threaten the complainant. Additionally, the defendant's reaction to the police encounter evidenced the state of mind of one who had just committed a crime (see, People v. Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 624-625, 478 N.Y.S.2d 987). Based on the aforenoted facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, that officer possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant as the perpetrator of the burglary.
We also reject the defendant's contention that the showup was unnecessarily suggestive. Showups which are close in time and location to the scene of the crime, as occurred here, are appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
... ... Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 326, 509 N.Y.S.2d 58 ; People v. Mayers, 100 A.D.2d 558, 558, 473 N.Y.S.2d 263 ). It was also not improper for the officer to inform the witnesses that an individual had been taken into custody, or to ask the victim if the defendant was the person who had robbed her (see People v ... ...
-
People v. James
... ... Marshall, 2007 WL 3232513, *12, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72804, *32 [E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2007, No. 05CV1992], citing Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 443, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 ).We do not agree with our dissenting colleague that People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 509 N.Y.S.2d 58 and People v. Mayers, 100 A.D.2d 558, 473 N.Y.S.2d 263 are controlling here. Although the defendant in each of those cases was required to don certain apparel for the purpose of the identification procedure, neither case involves the police officers holding the ... ...
-
People v. Morales
... ... This court has repeatedly held that showups which are [168 A.D.2d 90] close in time and location to the scene of the crime are appropriate measures to secure prompt and reliable identifications (see, People v. Cardwell, 158 A.D.2d 533, 551 N.Y.S.2d 299; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 509 N.Y.S.2d 58) ... Further, contrary to the defendant's argument, the prosecutor's comments and trial tactics did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. As a general rule, reversal for prosecutorial misconduct is mandated only when the misconduct results in ... ...
-
People v. Johnson
... ... The showup, which occurred shortly after the incident and close to the location of the crime, was an appropriate measure to secure a prompt and reliable identification ( see, People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 509 N.Y.S.2d 58, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 645, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 512 N.E.2d 563; People v. Mayers, ... 100 A.D.2d 558, 473 N.Y.S.2d 263). The fact that the defendant may have been wearing the same or similar clothing as that worn by one of the robbers does not render the showup ... ...