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. Benard HAWKINS, a/k/a Bernard Hawkins, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the written and videotaped statements. At the very least, the detective's observation of defendant being chased by a crowd of people vociferously accusing defendant of a specific murder known to the detective provided reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him (People v. Youmans, 228 A.D.2d 345, 644 N.Y.S.2d 506). Since defendant was being pursued by an angry group, it was reasonable for safety purposes to remove him to the nearby station house in order to look into the matter (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861), and, under these unusual circumstances, removal to the station house did not transform this investigative detention into an arrest (People v. Foster, 173 A.D.2d 841, 571 N.Y.S.2d 948, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011, 575 N.Y.S.2d 819, 581 N.E.2d 1065). When, moments later, one of the pursuers, who was properly found by the court to have the status of a citizen-informant, indicated to a detective at the precinct that defendant was the man who had been seen at the murder victim's apartment and who had sold the victim's possessions, probable cause existed to arrest defendant. We note, in any event, that probable cause already existed at the time of the street encounter, given the information about the case previously provided by the citizen-informant whom the detective had recognized during the chase.
The suppression hearing testimony established beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38-39, 396 N.Y.S.2d 625, 364 N.E.2d 1318) that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
The court was under no obligation to submit to the jury the issue of the voluntariness of defendant's confession absent a request from defendant.
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: October 13, 1998
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)