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. Jose TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered April 18, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Issues concerning identity, including defendant's opportunity to divest himself of evidence connecting him with the crime, were properly presented to the jury for its consideration and we see no reason to disturb its findings (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The police action in detaining defendant for a showup was based on reasonable suspicion. The radioed description of an Hispanic man in a black leather jacket, blue hooded sweatshirt and jeans was sufficiently specific given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the detention and the crime, and particularly since the transmission indicated the flight path of the suspect (see, People v. Plato, 247 A.D.2d 317, 668 N.Y.S.2d 462, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724; People v. Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, 581 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 596 N.E.2d 411). Within minutes of receiving the transmission that the suspect had fled into a park, heading east, the police officer encountered defendant, who matched the description, in the expected location, at the eastern exit of the park, a few blocks from the crime scene.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
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: June 17, 1999
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)