People v. Lepard

• Decision Date: 14 April 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02971,83 A.D.3d 1214,922 N.Y.S.2d 585
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Chris LEPARD, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

83 A.D.3d 1214

922 N.Y.S.2d 585

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02971

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Chris LEPARD, Appellant.

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

April 14, 2011.

Greg D. Lubow, Tannersville, for appellant.Terry J. Wilhelm, District Attorney, Catskill (Danielle D. McIntosh of counsel), for respondent.Before: SPAIN, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.STEIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), rendered November 10, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of resisting arrest.

On a Sunday morning in May 2008, defendant stopped his vehicle across the street from the scene of a routine traffic stop, at which Deputy Sheriff Travis Richards had stopped Dominick Adami for speeding. From his car, defendant allegedly began shouting obscenities because, according to both Adami and defendant, defendant was upset that someone had broken into his car and had stolen the stereo therefrom. To Richards—who was sitting in his police car with the windows closed when defendant arrived—it appeared that defendant was shouting at Adami. Defendant then exited his vehicle and walked toward Adami's car. According to Richards, defendant appeared to be threatening Adami and continued to shout obscenities as he approached Adami's car. Richards got out of his car and began to approach defendant, yelling at him to get back into his car and leave. In response, defendant informed Richards that he needed to speak with him to fill out a report. Defendant eventually returned to his own vehicle and drove away. After Richards completed the traffic stop of Adami, he proceeded to search for defendant and contacted police officer Matthew Mauriello for assistance in locating him. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes later, Richards found defendant in a public place, approached him and advised him that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct, at which point defendant reportedly became “agitated.” Richards attempted to handcuff him, but defendant pulled away, turned his back and placed his arms out of Richards' reach. Richards pressed against defendant's back and pushed him up against a nearby parked car, but defendant continued to resist the application of handcuffs. Mauriello arrived and attempted to assist Richards in arresting defendant. While Mauriello was doing so, defendant grabbed Mauriello's finger and bent it down, injuring it. Ultimately, Mauriello and Richards were able to handcuff and subdue defendant.

Defendant waived indictment and was arraigned on a superior court information charging him with assault in the second degree, resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration.¹ County Court denied defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss the superior court information and defendant was thereafter convicted of resisting arrest following a jury trial. ² Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contention, we are satisfied that the verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was in accord with the weight of the evidence. A conviction of resisting arrest requires a showing that defendant “intentionally prevent[ed] or attempt[ed] to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest” (Penal Law § 205.30). The first issue raised by defendant here is whether the People established the existence of probable cause for defendant's arrest, thereby proving that the arrest was authorized. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the People sufficiently demonstrated Richards' reasonable belief that defendant had committed the offenses of disorderly conduct and obstructing governmental administration when he first encountered him at the scene of the traffic stop.

The evidence at trial established that the area in which the traffic stop occurred included a municipal building, a diner and private residences and that defendant was swearing the entire time and appeared to be shouting at Adami that he was going to kill him. Inasmuch as the traffic stop took place on a Sunday morning, Richards' testimony supports a finding that he could have reasonably believed that the diner was occupied by patrons and that people were in their homes and, therefore, that defendant was recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm ( see generally Penal Law § 240.20[3]; People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 602, 435 N.Y.S.2d 679, 416 N.E.2d 1015 [1980]; People v. Williams, 25 A.D.3d 927, 928, 807 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 840, 814 N.Y.S.2d 88, 847 N.E.2d 385 [2006] ). In light of this evidence that Richards reasonably believed that defendant had committed the crime of disorderly conduct, the People established that his arrest was authorized ( see People v. Bruno, 47 A.D.3d 1064, 1066, 849 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 809, 857 N.Y.S.2d 42, 886 N.E.2d 807 [2008] ). Richards further testified that he believed that defendant's conduct jeopardized the safety of the traffic stop and caused an unnecessary delay in the issuance of a routine traffic ticket, thus interrupting Richards in the performance of his official duties. These allegations were sufficient to demonstrate that Richards also had probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing governmental administration ( see Penal Law § 195.05; People v. Graham, 54 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 865 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2008] ).

As for the requisite mental state, the testimony of Richards and Mauriello concerning defendant's body language and physical conduct in refusing to allow them to handcuff him, together with the fact that it took two officers to restrain him, demonstrates his intent to resist arrest ( see Penal Law § 15.05; People v. Stevenson, 31 N.Y.2d 108, 113, 335 N.Y.S.2d 52, 286 N.E.2d 445 [1972]; People v. Somerville, 72 A.D.3d 1285, 1287, 900 N.Y.S.2d 468 [2010]; People v. Clark, 241 A.D.2d 710, 710, 660 N.Y.S.2d 200 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 1010, 666 N.Y.S.2d 105, 688...