From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Spearman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 1996
226 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 11, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).


At the time defendant entered his negotiated guilty plea, he voluntarily waived any suppression issues, by indicating, through counsel, that he was withdrawing all his motions ( People v Corso, 183 A.D.2d 774; People v. Gary, 179 A.D.2d 821, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 947). Were we to review defendant's claims, we would find them to be without merit. The information supplied by citizen informants in a face-to-face encounter with the police that a robbery was being committed, and the observation by police officers seconds later of defendant and his cohort running from a grocery store, provided the officers with reasonable suspicion justifying pursuit ( People v. Miles, 210 A.D.2d 353). The observations of the police moments later of a man excitedly pointing to a cab, which then drove at a high rate of speed, ran red lights, broadsided cars, and crashed into another car before coming to rest, followed by defendant's exit from the car and subsequent flight therefrom after the police ordered him not to move, provided the police with probable cause to arrest defendant. Defendant then fired his gun at the police two or three times in response, and thereafter there was another shootout and chase. The statements made by defendant to the first officer while in the hospital under police custody were spontaneously volunteered, and therefore admissible ( People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476). Defendant's second statement, in which he detailed the robbery and ensuing chase, was given after the officer received permission from hospital staff, ascertained that defendant was not in extremis, and after Miranda warnings had been given. Thus, the statement was admissible ( People v. Del Rosario, 210 A.D.2d 72, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1030). Moreover, the showups conducted in the hospital were made in close temporal and physical proximity to the robbery, and the circumstances under which they were made were not unduly suggestive ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545; People v Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741; People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Spearman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 1996
226 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Spearman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARRELL SPEARMAN…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The information provided to the arresting officers by civilian…

People v. Shepard

99 NY2d 580). Defendant also sought suppression of his subsequent statements, made after Miranda warnings…