From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 2000
277 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 16, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J., at hearing; Robert Seewald, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 28, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Lynetta M. St. Clair, for respondent.

John Gemmill, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The hearing court properly determined that exigent circumstances justified the entry into the apartment. Minutes after defendant fired shots at a police officer thus committing a crime in their presence, he abandoned his weapon, and ran into a building, the police received an anonymous call providing defendant's first name, and advising the police that the person they were seeking was in a particular apartment in this building. This information was corroborated by the fact that although a radio was playing in that apartment, no one responded when the police identified themselves and repeatedly knocked on the door, circumstances suggesting that the apartment was occupied by a person avoiding contact with the police. This provided strong evidence to believe that defendant was in the apartment. Also, defendant was actively engaged in an attempt to escape; and there was a likelihood that defendant would escape if defendant was not swiftly apprehended. The circumstances of Sergeant Soto's entry in the apartment were peaceful. Furthermore, the crime defendant committed was violent and it was reasonable to believe that defendant was likely to have and to use an additional weapon against the police. Accordingly, the totality of circumstances justified an immediate warrantless entry (see, People v. Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214, 219, cert denied 460 U.S. 1024; People v. Cruz, 149 A.D.2d 151, 160).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence offered by the People. In any event, were we to find any error, we would find that it could not have affected the verdict.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 2000
277 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ISAAC MURRAY…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 388

Citing Cases

People v. Mendoza

As to all those items of evidence, the People assert that the Payton intrusion was justified by exigent…

People v. Mendoza

As to all those items of evidence, the People assert that the Payton intrusion was justified by exigent…