Summary
holding that the trial court did not err in denying suppression motion when it found that police reasonably relied on the consent of a 16-year-old when the circumstances indicated that she had the authority to consent
Summary of this case from Allen v. StateOpinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification; no reasonable view of the evidence established the elements of the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816). Defendant contends that the court should have suppressed the gun because his sister lacked authority to consent to the search. We disagree. Here, the "searching officers rel[ied] in good faith on the apparent capability of [defendant's sixteen-year-old sister] to consent to a search and the circumstances reasonably indicate[d] that [she did], in fact, have the authority to consent" (People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 9, rearg denied 54 N.Y.2d 832, cert denied 454 U.S. 854; see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 1], 222 A.D.2d 1073 [decided herewith]).