People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 October 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06731,39 N.Y.S.3d 482,143 A.D.3d 847 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Teon WILLIAMS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
143 A.D.3d 847
39 N.Y.S.3d 482
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06731
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Teon WILLIAMS, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 12, 2016.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered April 21, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review
the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the crime of burglary (see CPL 140.50 ; People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 ). His appearance matched the description given by the complainant, who had seen the defendant just minutes earlier, which description included not only his approximate height and skin color, but also his unique clothing, his hair and glasses, and his build. The police also knew the direction in which the defendant ran, and the defendant was tracked by a trained
police dog to the location several houses away, where he was apprehended. These facts gave rise to not only a reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a crime (see People v. Rosa, 199 A.D.2d 433, 605 N.Y.S.2d 337 ) but also probable cause to arrest him for it (see CPL 70.10[2] ; People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 402, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439 ; People v. Jones, 111 A.D.3d 1148, 975 N.Y.S.2d 484 ; People v. Velez, 59 A.D.3d 572, 574, 873 N.Y.S.2d 657 ; People v. Hughes, 227 A.D.2d 976, 643 N.Y.S.2d 828 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People met their burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Charles, 110 A.D.3d 1094, 973 N.Y.S.2d 763 ; People v. Berry, 50 A.D.3d 1047, 856 N.Y.S.2d 228 ). The showup was conducted in close spacial and temporal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lancaster
...of uniformed police officers and police cars (see People v. Slattery , 147 A.D.3d at 790, 46 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; People v. Williams , 143 A.D.3d 847, 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Bartlett , 137 A.D.3d at 806, 27 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; People v. Ward , 116 A.D.3d 989, 991, 984 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). The def......
-
People v. Baez
...the crime and eight blocks away from the crime scene (see People v. Slattery , 147 A.D.3d 788, 790, 46 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; People v. Williams , 143 A.D.3d 847, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Huerta , 141 A.D.3d 602, 35 N.Y.S.3d 433 ; People v. Williams , 284 A.D.2d 420, 726 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; People v.......
-
People v. Jhagroo
...1149, met their burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Williams, 143 A.D.3d 847, 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Huerta, 141 A.D.3d 602, 603, 35 N.Y.S.3d 433 ). The showup was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximit......
-
People v. Ogando
...complainant knew that the police had a suspect in custody (see People v. Baez, 175 A.D.3d at 554, 107 N.Y.S.3d 385 ; People v. Williams, 143 A.D.3d 847, 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Samuels, 39 A.D.3d at 570, 833 N.Y.S.2d 575 ), because the defendant was handcuffed and in the presence o......