Opinion
June 4, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the police had probable cause to effectuate his arrest. After receiving firsthand information from an identified citizen informant implicating the defendant in the robbery of a Suffolk County gas station, the police obtained photographic identifications from the attendants at that station and at two other gas stations where similar robberies had recently occurred. Upon viewing photographic arrays, these three eyewitnesses all identified the defendant as the person who had robbed them, thereby providing the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. Banks, 151 A.D.2d 491; People v. Williams, 150 A.D.2d 410; People v. Brown, 146 A.D.2d 793; People v. Douglas, 138 A.D.2d 731), who was found in the automobile described by an informant (see, People v. Allen, 112 A.D.2d 375). Accordingly, there was no error in the court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress his confessions and the identification testimony.
Furthermore, the court did not err in its ruling admitting into evidence a photograph of the injury sustained by one of the victims during one of the robberies. This photograph, which depicted a head wound closed by six sutures, was not excessively gruesome (see, People v. Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796), and was relevant to prove that the defendant did in fact commit this first degree robbery armed with a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law § 160.15; cf., People v. Redd, 137 A.D.2d 770). Moreover, the photograph served to illustrate this victim's testimony (see, People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, cert denied 416 U.S. 905). As the photograph was not admitted for the purpose of inflaming the jury (see, People v. Johnson, 144 A.D.2d 490), its receipt into evidence was not erroneous.
Similarly, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence of that portion of one of his confessions in which he admitted robbing one gas station to obtain money for the purchase of drugs. This evidence of his motive was clearly more probative than prejudicial (see, People v. Weir, 120 A.D.2d 554). Furthermore, such evidence of motive was not improperly received as evidence of an uncharged crime (see, People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. McKinley, 123 A.D.2d 362).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.