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, etc., respondent, v. Jackie DEWESE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 30, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The police saw the defendant and a codefendant, who fit the description of the perpetrators given by the complainant, walking down the street within close proximity to the crime scene, shortly after the crime occurred (see People v. Christopher, 21 A.D.3d 425, 800 N.Y.S.2d 204 [decided herewith] ). The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue, stop, and detain the defendant based on his sudden disappearance when the police approached him, hiding to avoid detection, and flight (see People v. Woods, 98 N.Y.2d 627, 745 N.Y.S.2d 749, 772 N.E.2d 1107; People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861; People v. Hunt, 306 A.D.2d 497, 762 N.Y.S.2d 416; People v. Rowlett, 193 A.D.2d 768, 597 N.Y.S.2d 718). Accordingly, his stop and brief detention were lawful (see People v. Hicks, supra ), and suppression was properly denied.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
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: August 08, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)