People v. Diaz

2016 NY Slip Op 6863, 143 A.D.3d 559, 40 N.Y.S.3d 368
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 2016·No. 4451/11 1952 1951·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Núñez, J., at suppression hearing; Jill Konviser, J., at jury *560 trial and sentencing), rendered August 21, 2012, as amended October 17, 2012 and October 18, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree, petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Except with regard to items recovered from a backpack, the court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had probable cause for defendant’s arrest, based on a chain of events, before, during and after the crime, that compelled the conclusion that defendant broke into a vehicle. An officer virtually observed the crime and defendant’s immediate flight, even though the officer heard, but did not see, the actual breaking of the vehicle’s window (see e.g. People v Santos, 41 AD3d 324, 326 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 926 [2007]). However, the evidence did not establish any basis for a search of a backpack that was within the officer’s sole control. Nonetheless, this error was harmless because additional stolen items from the car were lawfully recovered from defendant and thus the items recovered from defendant’s backpack were cumulative, adding little to the People’s case (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]).

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the officers to testify that they knew defendant from their work in the precinct, with the limiting instruction that the jurors should not speculate as to specifically how the officers knew him. This testimony was necessary to complete the overall narrative and explain how defendant came to be arrested after he fled from the scene (see People v Hernandez, 227 AD2d 162 [1st Dept 1996]). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Diaz, 2016 NY Slip Op 6863, 143 A.D.3d 559, 40 N.Y.S.3d 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

2016 NY Slip Op 6863 (People v. Diaz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Diaz
28 N.Y.3d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)