From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 1990
162 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 28, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).


Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490), we find that defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was positively identified as the person who had entered an apartment building with the victim and who left immediately after the victim screamed. The victim, who had been stabbed, followed the defendant out of the building, bleeding and holding her side. She pointed in defendant's direction and said "[s]top him. Call the cops" before collapsing.

The record amply supports the hearing court's determination that defendant's warrantless arrest on the street was based on probable cause. The arresting officer reasonably relied on a communication from another officer who possessed the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant based on reliable hearsay information and his own personal observations. (See, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398; People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852.)

Contrary to defendant's contention, the hearing court did not err in precluding him from calling the identifying witness at the Wade hearing since there is no absolute right to compulsory process at such hearings. As the Court of Appeals recently noted in People v. Chipp ( 75 N.Y.2d 327, 337), "as at trial, any right of compulsory process at a Wade hearing may be outweighed by countervailing policy concerns, properly within the discretion and control of the hearing Judge. To hold otherwise would, in our view, only encourage the misuse of Wade hearings. To accord every defendant an absolute right to call an identifying witness at a Wade hearing would enable defendants to harass identifying witnesses and to transform the hearing into a discovery proceeding neither authorized nor contemplated by the Legislature (see, People v. Hodge, 53 N.Y.2d 313, 318 * * *)."

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 1990
162 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Rosario

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILFREDO ROSARIO…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 7

Citing Cases

People v. Rosario

The People agreed not to use the statement in connection with their direct case but reserved the right to use…

People v. Face

Upon remittitur from this Court for a Dunaway hearing ( 247 A.D.2d 336), the trial court concluded that there…