Opinion
2022-00824 Ind. 1249/18
02-08-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Goodson, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 15236 No. 2019-03711
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Megan D. Byrne of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip V. Tisne of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Megan D. Byrne of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip V. Tisne of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J. at hearing; Ann E. Scherzer, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 5, 2019, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and two counts of petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress spontaneous statements he made while he was awaiting a lineup at a police station. As the court stated at the end of the hearing, it was undisputed that defendant had been lawfully arrested for an unrelated crime that occurred the day before defendant made the statements. Because defendant was in lawful custody for one crime, he could be placed in a lineup in connection with another (see People v Whitaker, 64 N.Y.2d 347 [1985], cert denied 474 U.S. 830 [1985]). We reject defendant's arguments concerning the scope of our review (see People v Nicholson, 26 N.Y.3d 813, 825-826 [2016]). The hearing court's ultimate determination should be read in the context of "the suppression hearing record and the colloquy with counsel" (People v Cisse, 32 N.Y.3d 1198, 1200 [2019]). In any event, even if the evidence should not have been admitted, any error in its admission was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 [1975]).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The record supports the conclusion that defendant knew he was prohibited from entering a store as the result of a trespass notice communicated to him after a prior shoplifting incident. Although the notice was not admitted into evidence, defendant nevertheless admitted receiving it and a store manager testified that, along with the store's loss prevention agent, he personally provided it to defendant (see e.g. People v Guerman, 156 A.D.3d 544, 544 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1014 [2018]). Additionally, there was corroborating circumstantial evidence.