From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 14, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that identification testimony and statements made by him to the police should have been suppressed as the purported fruits of an unlawful arrest is without merit. The defendant's arrest at the doorway of his apartment did not violate Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573). The rule of Payton prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest absent exigent circumstances or the suspect's consent to the entry of police into his home (see, People v. Payton, supra; People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952). The doorway to a private residence has been held to be a public place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, since the defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy while standing there, exposed to public view (see, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38; People v Rosario, 179 A.D.2d 442; People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638; People v. Nonni, 141 A.D.2d 862).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder in the first degree. Here, the defendant removed a gun hidden in a stolen car next to where he was standing and shot a police officer standing nearby with his back to the defendant. While the defendant contends he did not intend to kill the officer, an intent to kill may be readily inferred from the fact that he directed the gun towards the officer and pulled the trigger (see, People v Orama, 150 A.D.2d 505; People v. Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011, 1013). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Francis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARY FRANCIS, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 71

Citing Cases

People v. Gonzales

573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 have held that an arrest “at the doorway” or “in the doorway” to a…

People v. Townsend

05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable…