People v. Hines
| Decision Date | 26 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-00379. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 10550,46 A.D.3d 912,848 N.Y.S.2d 349 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALEX HINES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Less than 15 minutes after the police received a radio broadcast and then spoke to an eyewitness at the scene of a crime, they found the defendant within two blocks, wearing the specific clothing described in the broadcast and by the eyewitness. The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue, stop, and detain the defendant based upon the general description of the perpetrator which matched the description of the defendant, the close proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, and the short passage of time between the commission of the crime and the observation of the defendant (see People v Bennett, 37 AD3d 483, 484 [2007]; People v Gil, 21 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2005]; People v Green, 10 AD3d 664 [2004]; People v Holland, 4 AD3d 375, 376 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt of attempted grand larceny in the third degree is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the concession of guilt on the misdemeanor charge of criminal mischief in the fourth degree by defense counsel was not an indication of incompetence. "[S]uch defense tactics, whereby counsel admits guilt on a lesser charge in the hope that the jury would then be more receptive to the claim that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jakwon R.
...see People v. Palmer, 84 A.D.3d 1414, 1414, 923 N.Y.S.2d 907;People v. James, 72 A.D.3d at 844–845, 898 N.Y.S.2d 635;People v. Hines, 46 A.D.3d 912, 913, 848 N.Y.S.2d 349;People v. Private, 259 A.D.2d 504, 504, 687 N.Y.S.2d 379). Further, based on the radio report they received, the police ......
-
People v. Jenkins
...and acquit him thereof, is a perfectly acceptable strategy which should not be second guess [ed] by the courts” ( People v. Hines, 46 A.D.3d 912, 913, 848 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 812, 857 N.Y.S.2d 45, 886 N.E.2d 810 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; ......
-
People v. Wellington
...Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861; People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 897 N.Y.S.2d 716; People v. Hines, 46 A.D.3d 912, 913, 848 N.Y.S.2d 349). The Supreme Court properly determined that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant for a ......
-
People v. Mais
...for a showup was permissible to confirm or dispel the suspicion that the defendant had committed the crime ( see People v. Hines, 46 A.D.3d 912, 913, 848 N.Y.S.2d 349; People v. Bennett, 37 A.D.3d 483, 484, 829 N.Y.S.2d 206; People v. Quinones, 45 A.D.3d 874, 874-875, 847 N.Y.S.2d 145, affd......