From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.).


We reject defendant's likening of the suppression issue to a forcible seizure based on nothing more than an anonymous tip. Here, the apprehending officer, who knew that there had been a serious assault at the premises, was immediately directed to defendant by a crowd upon arriving at the scene and as defendant was rapidly walking away. These circumstances provided a sufficient predicate for the stop and patdown ( People v Cartagena, 189 A.D.2d 67, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1012; People v Foster, 209 A.D.2d 348, affd 85 N.Y.2d 1012), without need for further inquiry by the officer of the citizen informants concerning defendant's identity ( People v. Green, 35 N.Y.2d 193). When the officer saw blood on defendant's shoes while patting him down, a basis existed for transporting defendant to the station house, and when, at the station house, defendant was identified by the officer who had first seen him running away from the crime scene, probable cause existed for defendant's arrest. We reject defendant's argument that the unarranged station house identification was suggestive.

People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 306) does not apply retroactively to this case ( People v. Camacho, 209 A.D.2d 166, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1029). In any event, counsel, who expressed concern that the necessary security arrangements might affect potential jurors, waived his client's presence at robing room voir dire for reasons of strategy ( People v. Perez, 196 A.D.2d 781, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 900; cf., People v. Lopez, 207 A.D.2d 658, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 937); a Sloan claim was not properly presented since the subject of the individual voir dires concerned only general bias rather than bias specific to this defendant or this case; and defendant could not have been prejudiced by his absence since none of the venirepersons in question were selected ( People v Starks, 216 A.D.2d 120).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Nash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Nash

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERIC NASH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 2, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 634

Citing Cases

People v. Rosa

The officer also saw a man lying on the ground with other people gathering around him. These circumstances…

People v. Degout

This gave Officers Rogers reasonable suspicion to stop and inquire of the Defendants. People v. Nash, 227…