Opinion
November 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. When the police in responding to a radio call of drug sales at a drug-prone location, observed defendant acting "panicky", they had, at the very least, an objective credible reason for calling him over to the police car (People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 184-185), and when defendant, in approaching, put his hand in a pocket containing a bulge and refused to remove it, the presence of a weapon was strongly suggested (People v. Samuels, 50 N.Y.2d 1035, 1037, cert denied 449 U.S. 984; People v. Pettis, 195 A.D.2d 421), creating reasonable suspicion of criminality, which was reinforced by defendant's sudden flight, that justified the pursuit and the recovery of the revolver defendant abandoned in flight (see, People v. Bora, 83 N.Y.2d 531; compare, People v Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056).
The court's refusal to admit into evidence a purported "excited utterance" contained in police reports was a proper exercise of discretion given no direct evidence, and insufficient circumstantial evidence, that the declarant made the statement while still under the stress of his injuries (People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.