People v. Thiam

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before MILONAS
• Citation: People v. Thiam, 647 N.Y.S.2d 763, 232 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 03 October 1996
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mohamed THIAM, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 763

647 N.Y.S.2d 763

232 A.D.2d 199

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mohamed THIAM, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Oct. 3, 1996.

Eleanor J. Ostrow, for Respondent.

Ronald Alfano, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered July 28, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years and 2 1/3 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

According due deference to the credibility determinations of the hearing court (People v. Fonte, 159 A.D.2d 346, 552 N.Y.S.2d 623, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 734, 558 N.Y.S.2d 896, 557 N.E.2d 1192), the testimony at the suppression hearing established that defendant voluntarily invited the officers into his room, and that the clear intent of the officers was to investigate, not to arrest. The evidence sought to be suppressed was not the product of an illegal arrest, but rather was obtained in the course of police investigation and prior to any arrest (see, People v. Kozlowski, 69 N.Y.2d 761, 513 N.Y.S.2d 101, 505 N.E.2d 611), irrespective of the circumstances of the police entry into defendant's rooming house. Thus, the hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, defendant's guilt of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264), and we find the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

The trial court properly denied defendant's application for in camera inspection of the records of a rape crisis counselor who interviewed the complainant at the hospital on the ground that defendant's motion failed to set forth "specific factual allegations providing grounds that disclosure [of an otherwise privileged communication] is required" (CPL 60.76).

Since there is nothing unique about a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am, the trial court's ruling that defendant might introduce photographs of the car's interior, as well as offer expert testimony regarding...