PEOPLE v. MCRAE (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J. at suppression hearing;  Felicia A. Mennin, J. at trial and sentencing), rendered April 19, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to four years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.  Under the fellow officer rule (see People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416, 419, 690 N.Y.S.2d 874, 712 N.E.2d 1238 [1999]), the arresting officer was entitled to rely on the description of a drug seller provided by radio transmission by a ghost undercover officer during a buy-and-bust operation.  Within one minute of the transmission, the arresting officer arrived at the location of the reported narcotics sale and saw defendant, who matched the description, in the immediate vicinity.  The description, which included defendant's red sneakers, “was sufficiently specific, given the close spatial and temporal proximity between the sale and the arrest,” to provide reasonable suspicion to detain defendant pending a confirmatory identification by the primary undercover officer who purchased the narcotics (People v. Rogers, 71 A.D.3d 457, 458, 897 N.Y.S.2d 400 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 892, 903 N.Y.S.2d 780, 929 N.E.2d 1015 [2010];  see People v. Nelson, 24 A.D.3d 253, 254, 808 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 816, 812 N.Y.S.2d 455, 845 N.E.2d 1286 [2006]).  The combination of these facts make it “highly unlikely that the suspect had departed and that, almost at the same moment, an innocent person of identical appearance coincidentally arrived on the scene” (People v. Johnson, 63 A.D.3d 518, 881 N.Y.S.2d 81 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 797, 887 N.Y.S.2d 546, 916 N.E.2d 441 [2009]).

The court providently exercised its discretion and responded meaningfully to a note from the deliberating jury (see generally People v. Aguilar, 41 N.Y.3d 335, 338, 210 N.Y.S.3d 727, 234 N.E.3d 343 [2024];  People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301–302, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982]), when it declined to give a simple “yes” or “no” answer, either of which would have improperly “undermine[d] defense arguments or preclude[d] the drawing of reasonable inferences” (People v. Alvarez, 217 A.D.3d 483, 484, 190 N.Y.S.3d 363 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1038, 200 N.Y.S.3d 767, 223 N.E.3d 1243 [2023]).  Instead, the court directed the jury's attention to two exhibits in evidence, from which the jury could have reasonably inferred either a yes or a no answer to their question.  Although invited to do so, the jury did not “seek further instruction or clarification” which supports the conclusion that the trial court “correctly interpreted the jury note and responded meaningfully and with the complete information sought” (Aguilar, 41 N.Y.3d at 339, 210 N.Y.S.3d 727, 234 N.E.3d 343).