Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith ATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Michael Obus, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 9, 1997, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony was properly denied. The hearing evidence established that the arresting officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant had been involved in a crime and had come into the subway to escape. Defendant, visibly injured and bleeding, with an open box cutter in his hand and a worried facial expression, rushed into a subway station only to retreat immediately upon making eye contact with the officers. Defendant's continued flight after the officers identified themselves, and directed defendant to stop, justified their pursuit of him (see, People v. Velasquez, 217 A.D.2d 510, 511, 512, 630 N.Y.S.2d 303, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 852, 638 N.Y.S.2d 610, 661 N.E.2d 1393; see also, People v. Atkins, 273 A.D.2d 12, 708 N.Y.S.2d 109). Since defendant was armed and continued to struggle after being detained, the police had a reasonable basis upon which to handcuff him to effect his non-arrest detention (see, People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378, 540 N.Y.S.2d 971, 538 N.E.2d 323). Finally, the information received from two unidentified women almost simultaneously with defendant's detention sufficiently elevated the level of suspicion to probable cause.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
Counsel's failure to effectuate defendant's alleged desire to testify before the Grand Jury did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation (see, People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91, 675 N.E.2d 845).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 28, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)