People v. Nixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nixon

152 A.D.2d 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 678 (People v. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Nixon, 152 A.D.2d 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered January 9, 1987, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention we find that the police had probable cause to arrest him based upon information supplied by a citizen informant. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the informant identified herself to two police officers as the defendant’s cousin and informed them that the defendant had bragged to her about robbing a gas station "twice before”. She then brought the officers to the home she shared with the defendant where, after being granted permission by the defendant’s grandaunt to search the house, they found and took the defendant into custody in connection with two recent robberies of a nearby gas station. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the hearing court’s determination denying suppression of the subsequent identification of the defendant in a lineup.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the lineup and the court’s charge and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered January 9, 1987, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention we find that the police had probable cause to arrest him based upon information supplied by a citizen informant. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the informant identified herself to two police officers as the defendant’s cousin and informed them that the defendant had bragged to her about robbing a gas station "twice before”. She then brought the officers to the home she shared with the defendant where, after being granted permission by the defendant’s grandaunt to search the house, they found and took the defendant into custody in connection with two recent robberies of a nearby gas station. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the hearing court’s determination denying suppression of the subsequent identification of the defendant in a lineup.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the lineup and the court’s charge and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nixon-nyappdiv-1989.