From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wingfield

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 18, 2011
88 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-10-18

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Bryan WINGFIELD, Defendant–Appellant.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Denise Fabiano of counsel), and Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Christopher J. Houpt of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), for respondent.


Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Denise Fabiano of counsel), and Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Christopher J. Houpt of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J. at suppression hearing; Bruce Allen, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 4, 2008, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. When the police heard shots and immediately saw defendant running from the location where the gunfire originated, the police acted reasonably under the totality of circumstances when they pursued defendant. Defendant's pattern of behavior provided reasonable suspicion that the reason for his flight was his involvement in the shooting ( see People v. Johnson, 51 A.D.3d 508, 509, 859 N.Y.S.2d 411 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 738, 864 N.Y.S.2d 396, 894 N.E.2d 660 [2008] ). Accordingly, the recovery of a pistol that defendant dropped was not the product of an unlawful seizure.

The court's adverse inference charge concerning the prosecution's loss or destruction of certain recordings of an officer's radio transmission correctly stated the law, and it was sufficient to prevent any prejudice ( see People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134 [1988] ). The court was not obligated to include additional language requested by defendant ( see People v. Alvarez, 54 A.D.3d 612, 613, 864 N.Y.S.2d 410 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 853, 872 N.Y.S.2d 76, 900 N.E.2d 559 [2008] ).


Summaries of

People v. Wingfield

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 18, 2011
88 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Wingfield

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Bryan WINGFIELD…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 18, 2011

Citations

88 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
88 A.D.3d 537
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7280

Citing Cases

People v. Wingfield

Judge: , J. Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 88 AD3d 537 (NY)…

People v. Sanchez

In addition, before any seizure occurred, the officer's partner told him that defendant was holding his…