People v. Young
| Decision Date | 13 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9910 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rudolph YOUNG, Appellant. (Appeal) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward J. Nowak by Elizabeth Clark, Rochester, for appellant.
Howard R. Relin by Robert Mastrocola, Rochester, for respondent.
Present: DENMAN, P.J., HAYES, WISNER, CALLAHAN and BOEHM, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ) (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[3] ). Upon defendant's motion to set aside the sentence originally imposed on that conviction, Supreme Court resentenced defendant as a persistent felony offender to an aggregate term of 50 years to life. Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress; that he was erroneously adjudicated a persistent felony offender; and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.
As we held on a prior appeal in a related prosecution, police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v. Young, 202 A.D.2d 1024, 1025-1027, 609 N.Y.S.2d 725). Evidence obtained as a result of that illegal arrest included defendant's statement at the time of arrest, police observations of defendant at that time, and evidence of a victim's line-up identification of defendant, all of which was admitted against defendant at the trial in this case. The evidence at the suppression hearing does not support the People's contention that the line-up identification was attenuated from the illegal arrest. Defendant was arrested at 7:40 A.M., at which time police seized incriminating evidence and elicited defendant's statement. At approximately 8:05 A.M., defendant gave police his clothes. Defendant subsequently was interviewed by police officers, but said nothing incriminating; at one point, he said that he wanted a lawyer if he was being accused of specific crimes. Questioning ceased. Between 8:45 and 9:00 A.M., while still in custody, and within about an hour of his illegal arrest, defendant was asked if he would participate in a line-up and indicated that he would. Because police obtained defendant's consent to the line-up by means affected by the primary taint, it must be concluded that the line-up identification flowed directly from the illegal arrest and was not attenuated therefrom (see, People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408, 417, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441, 462 N.E.2d 1159; People v. Simpson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Conway
...the lineup identification flowed directly from the illegal arrest and was not attenuated therefrom [.]” People v. Young, 255 A.D.2d 905, 906, 683 N.Y.S.2d 677 (App.Div. 4th Dept.1998). The Fourth Department went on to hold that “[b]ecause proof of the line-up identification and other eviden......
-
Young v. Conway
...not attenuated therefrom,” Mrs. Sykes's testimony concerning the lineup should not have been admitted at trial. People v. Young, 255 A.D.2d 905, 683 N.Y.S.2d 677, 678 (1998). The court ordered a new trial and provided the prosecution with an opportunity to prove that Mrs. Sykes had “a basis......
-
Young v. Conway
...Rather, it was that she first identified Young at a lineup found to be the fruit of an unlawful arrest. See People v. Young, 255 A.D.2d 905, 683 N.Y.S.2d 677 (4th Dep't 1998) (holding that Young's participation in lineup resulted from arrest lacking probable cause).2 The admission of this t......
-
People v. Young
...evidence, including the lineup identification, was held to be the result of an arrest without probable cause (People v. Young, 255 A.D.2d 905, 683 N.Y.S.2d 677 [1998]). In 1999, before defendant was retried, the trial court held an source" hearing, and found that Mrs. Sykes was able to iden......