People v. Moses
| Decision Date | 12 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-04253. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 06429,32 A.D.3d 866,823 N.Y.S.2d 409 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JACKIE MOSES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
Ordered that the motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated April 11, 2006 (see People v Moses, 28 AD3d 584 [2006]), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), rendered May 3, 2004, as amended May 14, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, bail jumping in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal trespass in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal trespass in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and vacating the sentences imposed thereon, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, and a new trial is ordered on the charges of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal trespass in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source exists for the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
At a combined Dunaway/Wade hearing (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]; United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]), the prosecution presented only the testimony of the arresting officer, who stated that he received a radio communication regarding a robbery in progress and responded to the complainant's location. After speaking with the complainant, the officer received a second radio communication indicating that there was a person stopped in the vicinity of a nearby intersection. The officer then drove the complainant to that location where the officer and the complainant observed the defendant leaning against an unmarked police car between two plainclothes police officers wearing "NYPD" jackets. The complainant identified the defendant as the man who broke into her home, and he was placed under arrest. The prosecution did not call either of the plainclothes officers to testify at the hearing regarding the circumstances by which the defendant came to be in their company near the intersection. The hearing court thereafter denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification on the grounds that it was the product of his unlawful detention and arose from unduly suggestive circumstances. At the subsequent trial, the complainant identified the defendant in court and testified with regard to her pretrial identification of him. The defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and other offenses. We modify.
At a suppression hearing, the prosecution has the initial burden of going forward with evidence to demonstrate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Newson
...burden of going forward with evidence to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct in the first instance" ( People v. Moses, 32 A.D.3d 866, 868, 823 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). Accepting the testimony of the arresting officer as true (see People v. Condon, 100 A.D.3d 920, 920, 954 N.Y.S.2d 212 ), ......
-
People v. Harris
...A.D.3d 777, 778, 836 N.Y.S.2d 219 ; see People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 367–368, 321 N.Y.S.2d 884, 270 N.E.2d 709 ; People v. Moses, 32 A.D.3d 866, 868, 823 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). "Implicit in this concept is that the testimony offered by the People in first presenting their case must be credibl......
-
People v. Roger
...People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 413 N.Y.S.2d 334 (1978); People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1984); People v. Moses, 32 AD3d 866, 823 N.Y.S.2d 409 (2nd Dept.2006), lv. den.7 NY3d 927, 827 N.Y.S.2d 696 (2006) Once the prosecution has met this burden, the defendant has the ultimat......
-
People v. McClam
...People v. Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 413 N.Y.S.2d 334 (1978); People v. Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1984); People v. Moses, 32 AD3d 866, 823 N.Y.S.2d 409 (2nd Dept. 2006), lv. den. 7 NY3d 927, 827 N.Y.S.2d 696 (2006) The burden is also on the People to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, tha......