People v. Hicks

• Citation: 78 A.D.3d 1075,913 N.Y.S.2d 237
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Noel HICKS, appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 November 2010
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

913 N.Y.S.2d 237
78 A.D.3d 1075

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Noel HICKS, appellant.

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

Nov. 23, 2010.

913 N.Y.S.2d 238

Marianne Karas, Armonk, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio, Sarah Abeles, and Gazeena Soni of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

78 A.D.3d 1075

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered June 15, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of identification testimony and physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying suppression of the showup identification made by the complainant near the scene of the crime. While showup procedures are generally disfavored, they are permissible where, as in this case, they are employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification ( see

913 N.Y.S.2d 239

People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607, 601 N.Y.S.2d 124). The fact that the defendant was in the company of the police did not render the showup constitutionally infirm ( see People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d at 607, 601 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. McLamb, 140 A.D.2d 717, 528 N.Y.S.2d 897).

Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant based upon the description, broadcast to

78 A.D.3d 1076

police units, of the perpetrator of a burglary, which matched the defendant's description, his close proximity to the site of the crime, and the short passage of time between the crime and the showup ( see People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163, 897 N.Y.S.2d 716; People v. Green, 10 A.D.3d 664, 781 N.Y.S.2d 700; see also People v. Blak, 6 A.D.3d 301, 774 N.Y.S.2d 711; People v. Ferguson, 5 A.D.3d 250, 773 N.Y.S.2d 292; People v. Bell,...