People v. DeJesus

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Evans

    237 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    Police officers discovered the defendant hiding in the closet of an abandoned apartment with two accomplices immediately after a fourth man, identified by the victim as one of the robbers, was caught climbing through the window of an adjoining apartment. We agree with the hearing court that these facts justified the brief detention of the defendant in order to conduct a showup identification by the victim at the crime scene ( see, People v Troche, 185 AD2d 368; People v Gordon, 193 AD2d 694; People v DeJesus, 185 AD2d 855). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the use of handcuffs in transporting him to the patrol car where the victim was waiting did not transform the detention into a. full-blown arrest requiring probable cause ( see, People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378; People v Carney, 212 AD2d 721). Probable cause to arrest the defendant was established after the victim unequivocally identified him as one of the perpetrators ( see, People v Gonzalez, 138 AD2d 622; People v Crespo, 70 AD2d 661). Equally without merit is the defendant's contention that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

  2. People v. Seiden

    199 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    He responded untruthfully when he denied possessing the bag which Officer Rocchi had seen him holding only minutes before (see, People v Hollman, supra, at 193; People v Gibson, 194 A.D.2d 623; People v McCowen, 159 A.D.2d 210). Additionally, while the defendant informed Officer Rocchi that he was going home, and his driver's license indicated that he lived in Suffolk County, which is east of Carle Place, the defendant had positioned himself on the westbound train platform (People v Gibson, supra). This information was sufficient to justify a minimally intrusive detention until the complainant, who was nearby, could be brought to the scene (see, People v Hicks, supra; People v Gordon, 193 A.D.2d 694; People v DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855). Although the complainant did not positively identify the defendant as the person who had climbed out of her window, she did unequivocally identify him as the individual whom she had seen carrying a bag and walking down Mineola Avenue towards the train station immediately after the burglary had been committed. Considering the foregoing, the police were justified in momentarily extending the defendant's detention while Officer Maxwell retrieved the bag and displayed its contents to the complainant in order to expeditiously resolve his suspicion that the defendant was the perpetrator of the burglary (cf.

  3. People v. Gordon

    193 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The hearing testimony established that the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention until the complainant could arrive at the showup and possibly identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855; People v Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 672). Furthermore, the showup was made in close temporal and special proximity to the scene of the crime and served the societal interest of obtaining a prompt identification (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Holmes, 159 A.D.2d 639). While the trial court improperly admitted evidence that the police recovered a large sum of money from the defendant upon his arrest for a single robbery of approximately $20 (see, People v Portilla, 190 A.D.2d 827; People v Symbato, 72 A.D.2d 780), there was no reasonable probability that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Portilla, supra).

  4. People v. Echevarria

    185 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed (see, People v. DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.