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. George NATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J. at hearing; Arlene R. Silverman, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 3, 2002, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 11 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant on the basis of a sufficiently specific description of three robbery suspects, as well as a supplementary radioed description of particular types of hats worn by two of the men, where defendant and his companions were found in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime and in a location consistent with the flight path of the suspects (see e.g. People v. Plato, 247 A.D.2d 317, 668 N.Y.S.2d 462 [1998], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998] ). Moreover, the three men were the only people on a deserted street in the early hours of the morning, and they behaved suspiciously upon seeing the patrol car. Although there was some discrepancy between the transmitted description and the appearance of one of the men, the totality of the information possessed by the arresting officer at the time he stopped defendant was sufficient to justify his action.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility and identification were properly resolved by the jury and there is no reason to disturb its determinations (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).
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: December 09, 2004
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)