People v. Wise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wise

99 A.D.3d 584, 952 N.Y.2d 196

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 584 (People v. Wise) 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. Wise, 99 A.D.3d 584, 952 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The officers saw an apparently injured man lying on the ground. Defendant ran away from this man while attempting to stuff something into his rear waistband, that one of the officers believed, based on his experience, was a deadly weapon. That defendant continued these actions after the police told him to stop tended to negate any innocent explanations. At this point, the police had reasonable suspicion upon which to draw their weapons and forcibly detain defendant (see People v Rivera, 286 AD2d 235 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 760 [2002]). A bystander then told the police that defendant had assaulted the man lying on the ground.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the [585]*585physical injury element of second-degree robbery under Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a). The testimony of the victim, the officers and a bystander established that the victim had a swollen mouth, a bloody lip, and a bloody and bruised elbow, and that he temporarily lost consciousness. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The officers saw an apparently injured man lying on the ground. Defendant ran away from this man while attempting to stuff something into his rear waistband, that one of the officers believed, based on his experience, was a deadly weapon. That defendant continued these actions after the police told him to stop tended to negate any innocent explanations. At this point, the police had reasonable suspicion upon which to draw their weapons and forcibly detain defendant (see People v Rivera, 286 AD2d 235 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 760 [2002]). A bystander then told the police that defendant had assaulted the man lying on the ground.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the [585]*585physical injury element of second-degree robbery under Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a). The testimony of the victim, the officers and a bystander established that the victim had a swollen mouth, a bloody lip, and a bloody and bruised elbow, and that he temporarily lost consciousness. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 584, 952 N.Y.2d 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wise-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack