People v. JamesPeople v. James
Defendant also argues that the pretrial identification should not have been admitted at trial because it was the product of an arrest unsupported by probable cause. There is no merit to this claim. The police, responding to a call of a burglary in progress, confirmed their information upon arrival at the scene. They observed the defendant, who matched the earlier description of one of the suspects, jump up and run. Thus, the officer clearly had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime (see, CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; People v Valo,
Defendant’s claim that the verdict of guilty of burglary in the third degree was repugnant to the verdict of not guilty of grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny was not preserved for review (see, People v Satloff,