People v. Harmon, 1

• Decision Date: 09 April 2002
• Docket Number: 703,1
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Harmon, Defendant-Appellant. 703 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Decided on
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Harmon, Defendant-Appellant.

703

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Decided on April 9, 2002

Ann M. Olson - for respondent,

Lawrence T. Hausman - for defendant-appellant.

Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J. at suppression hearing; George Daniels, J. at jury trial and sentence), convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The victims of a series of robberies described the robber as a black man in his twenties, approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall, 170-175 pounds, with a pencil-thin beard and mustache, wearing a down camouflage jacket with a white circle on the left breast. This description was sufficiently specific to provide the police with probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v McKethan, 225 A.D.2d 800, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 938), particularly since defendant was arrested in the general vicinity of the crimes and at approximately the same time of day as the crimes (see, People v Williams, 273 A.D.2d 79, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 940). Although defendant was arrested seven days after the crimes, in the circumstances of this case, the passage of time did not render it less than probable that defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v Polk, 166 A.D.2d 177, 179, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 1023). Since "[p]robable cause does not require proof to a mathematical certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt," (People v Mercado, 68 N.Y.2d 874, 877), the People were not required to prove that defendant's jacket was unique. The jacket was sufficiently distinctive, when coupled with the balance of the description and the surrounding circumstances.