In re Jakiyo L.
—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated October 29, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated October 6, 1997, upon the appellant’s admission that he had committed an act which constituted the crime of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a combined Mapp!Huntley hearing, of that branch of the appellant’s pre-trial motion which was to suppress physical evidence and a statement he made to law enforcement authorities.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At 4:35 p.m. on June 21, 1997, on Elizabeth Street in Staten Island, a gray-haired man in his forties told two uniformed officers on routine patrol that he had just seen two young black males wearing red shirts at the corner of Manor Road and Forest Avenue, and that one of them had displayed a handgun to the other before both walked off1 in the direction of Clove Road and Forest Avenue. The police did not record the name of the man who reported this information, but, upon hastening to the described area, the officers spotted two young black males — the appellant and his companion — wearing red shirts, and walking north on Elizabeth Street, away from Forest Avenue. The officers ordered them to stop. One officer, with his weapon drawn
Contrary to the appellant’s contention on appeal, “Reasonable suspicion can be supplied by an anonymous informant, whose information, if given in a face-to-face interview with police, is considered to be reliable since an experienced officer can assess the informant’s trustworthiness from his appearance and demeanor” (People v Sledge,
In addition, the hearing court did not err in concluding, on the basis of the credible testimony, that the appellant’s statement was spontaneous and therefore also admissible (see, People v Rivers,