From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pennix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 1990
166 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 29, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Monserrate, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the police intentionally isolated him from his parents, thereby violating his right to counsel by sealing off the most likely avenue by which he might obtain the assistance of counsel, is without merit. The record reveals that the defendant was 18 years of age when arrested and therefore the police were under no duty to contact the defendant's parents regarding his arrest (see, People v. Crosby, 105 A.D.2d 844, 845). Furthermore, there was no evidence produced that demonstrated that the police employed a "pattern of isolation and trickery designed to keep the defendant from obtaining counsel" (People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 100). Thus, there was no violation of the defendant's right to counsel and his statements were properly admitted into evidence.

The defendant also contends that the reliability of the confidential informant, upon whose information the defendant was arrested, was not sufficient to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test and therefore his arrest lacked probable cause. We find otherwise. The record reveals that the informant obtained her information from a boyfriend who was one of the perpetrators of the crime along with the defendant. The informant gave the police detailed statements regarding the crime which the police corroborated with personal observations (see, People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 491). Additionally, the informant knew information about the crime which was not of public knowledge and which the police corroborated. As such, we find that the hearing court's determination of probable cause was based on information derived from a reliable source (see, People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635).

The hearing court's decision not to hold a Darden hearing to confirm the existence of an informant constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pennix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 1990
166 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Pennix

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE PENNIX II…

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

Date published: Oct 29, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 480

Citing Cases

People v. Morales

ed that over and beyond the ordinary constitutional safeguards provided for adults subjected to questioning,…

People v. Malik

The defendant's claim that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to…