PEOPLE v. DOMINGUEZ (2018)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered June 19, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of forgery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 1/212 to 7 years unanimously affirmed.

Initially, after balancing the relevant factors, we exercise our discretion to hear this appeal despite defendant's long delay in perfecting it.

The court properly declined to suppress any evidence as fruit of an allegedly unlawful seizure.  The police had probable cause to arrest defendant based on reliable information from a store employee that defendant had attempted to use a credit card bearing a different name from the one he had used a few days earlier.  The inference of criminal activity was compelling, and it was not rendered equivocal by the fact that innocent, but unlikely, explanations could be imagined (see generally People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254, 445 N.Y.S.2d 97, 429 N.E.2d 775 [1981];  see also Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 [1949];  People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451 [1985] ).  Moreover, the existing probable cause was reinforced by defendant's flight from the police (see People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 592, 430 N.Y.S.2d 578, 408 N.E.2d 908 [1980], cert denied 449 U.S. 1023, 101 S.Ct. 590, 66 L.Ed.2d 484 [1980] ).

Even assuming that certain statements made by defendant without Miranda warnings should have been suppressed because they were elicited by a question that fell outside the pedigree exception, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).

At trial, the court providently exercised its discretion in receiving evidence that defendant made uncharged fraudulent purchases at another store with the same stolen credit card earlier in the day.  The evidence was relevant to the issue of intent, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect (see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919 [2009] ).