| People v McClain |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08660 [67 AD3d 1480] |
| November 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AndreMcClain, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered April 3, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder inthe second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of murderin the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]), defendant contends that the police lackedprobable cause to arrest him and that Supreme Court therefore erred in refusing to suppress hisstatement to the police made as the result of that allegedly unlawful arrest. We reject thatcontention. The record of the suppression hearing establishes that an identified citizen observeddefendant at the crime scene and informed the police that defendant was involved in thehomicide. We note in addition that a second identified citizen verified defendant's presence at thecrime scene. It is well settled that "information provided by an identified citizen accusinganother individual of the commission of a specific crime is sufficient to provide the police withprobable cause to arrest" (People v Williams, 301 AD2d 543 [2003], lv denied100 NY2d 589 [2003]; see People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Grant, 254 AD2d 700, 700-701 [1998], lv denied 93NY2d 853 [1999]). "When the witness supplying information to the police is an identified citizenrelating information about a crime the citizen personally observed, the People need not make anindependent showing of the . . . reliability and basis of knowledge" of the witness(People v Martin, 221 AD2d 568, 568 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 1021[1996]; see People v Rivera, 210 AD2d 895 [1994]). Moreover, "[w]e accord greatdeference to the determination of [Supreme] Court crediting the testimony of the police officerconcerning the information provided by the citizen informant" (Brito, 59 AD3d at 1000).Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe.Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.