People v. WallacePeople v. Wallace
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The credibility determinations of thе County Court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the suppression hearing, are entitled to great deferеnce on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]; People v Duggins, 1 AD3d 450 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]). Here, thе defendant‘s statements, although made before being informed of his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), were spontaneous and were “not triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him” (People v Barley, 82 AD3d 996, 996 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Henderson, 57 AD3d 562, 564-565 [2008]; People v Whyte, 47 AD3d 852, 853 [2008]). Moreover, the record supports the County Court‘s determinations that the police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant (see People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627, 628-629 [2002]; People v Holland, 4 AD3d 375, 376 [2004]; People v Sharpe, 259 AD2d 639 [1999]), and that the reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause to place him under arrest (see People v Cotsifas, 100 AD3d 1015 [2012]; People v Shaw, 83 AD3d 1101 [2011]; People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Butler, 293 AD2d 686, 687 [2002]; People v Yizar, 196 AD2d 517, 518 [1993]). Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the notice provided pursuant to
The defendant‘s contentiоn that the County Court should have suppressed certain physical evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the County Court‘s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377 [1974]) reflected a proper balance between the prejudicial еffect of his prior convictions and their probative value on the issue of his credibility. The defendant‘s prior convictions bore directly upon his credibility and willingness to place his interests above those оf society. These convictions were not so remote in time as to mandate preclusion, given thе length of the defendant‘s incarceration between these convictions and the trial of this matter (see People v McLaurin, 33 AD3d 819, 820 [2006]; People v Mack, 6 AD3d 551 [2004]; People v Peterson, 262 AD2d 502, 503 [1999]). Furthеr, in prohibiting the prosecutor from eliciting the underlying facts of the defendant‘s earlier convictions, the County Court avoided any undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v Rosado, 115 AD3d 884, 885 [2014]; People v Thompson, 99 AD3d 819 [2012]; People v Myron, 28 AD3d 681, 683 [2006]).
The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate reviеw (see
The defendant‘s cоntention that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant‘s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see
The defendant contends that the prosecutor‘s peremptory challenges to prospective jurors based on race violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]). However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review as to certain jurors challenged prior to the challenge to juror No. 18 in the second round, as defense counsel never requestеd explanations for the challenges exercised by the prosecutor regarding those jurors (see
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the County Court properly allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony relating to suspected check fraud and a relаted 911 emergency telephone call. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to provide background information as to why the police pursued and confronted the defendаnt (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]; People v Morris, 89 AD3d 1112 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 588 [2013]; People v Johnson, 76 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2010]; People v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780 [2008]). Moreover, the County Court alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant by properly instructing the jury as to the limited purpose of the evidence (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d at 661; People v Morris, 89 AD3d at 1113; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2011]).