People v. Hodge

• Decision Date: 27 March 1997
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reggie HODGE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 21

655 N.Y.S.2d 21

237 A.D.2d 234

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reggie HODGE, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

March 27, 1997.

Peter Hinckley, for Respondent.

Philip A. Hohenlohe, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, RUBIN and ANDRIAS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.,), rendered September 21, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 1/2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's guilt was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the testimony of the complainant and another eyewitness who both had ample opportunity to view defendant both during and after the robbery and who both identified him shortly after the incident.

There was reasonable suspicion to detain defendant pending immediate identification where, within five minutes of receiving a transmission that a robbery had been committed by a black male and a black female who were heading in a specific direction, the officers saw defendant walking in a direction consistent with the transmission and looking around nervously, followed by his female codefendant who was attempting to catch up with him, and they were the only persons in the area (People v. Pagan, 227 A.D.2d 133, 641 N.Y.S.2d 641, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 991, 649 N.Y.S.2d 398, 672 N.E.2d 624). Moreover, as defendant was being stopped, the codefendant made an incriminating statement.

Testimony by the officers about the substance of the radio transmission was properly admissible at trial to explain the events leading to defendant's apprehension (see, People v. Ford, 232 A.D.2d 285, 649 N.Y.S.2d 12) and the court's refusal to give a limiting instruction on this subject was harmless under all the circumstances.

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there was any error in the translation of the complainant's direct testimony, particularly where defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the witness in English (see, People v. Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278, 552 N.Y.S.2d 841, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 857, 560 N.Y.S.2d 996, 561 N.E.2d 896).

The court's erroneous no inference charge during voir dire was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (...