Opinion
123 KA 13-00675
03-20-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael H. JOHNSON, Defendant-appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Deborah K. Jessey of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Diane S. Meldrim of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Deborah K. Jessey of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Diane S. Meldrim of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a bench trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[4] ) in connection with the theft of a credit card from the victim's purse, which the victim left in her car in the parking lot of a business while she was in the building. Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court properly denied that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his inculpatory statement to the police. Defendant's statement was spontaneous, i.e., it was not “triggered by police conduct which should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant” (People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 295, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405 ; see People v. Witherspoon, 66 A.D.3d 1456, 1458, 885 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 942, 895 N.Y.S.2d 333, 922 N.E.2d 922 ; cf. People v. Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711, 713, 447 N.Y.S.2d 139, 431 N.E.2d 624 ). We further conclude that the photo array shown to three eyewitnesses was not unduly suggestive (see generally People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 ). The court properly determined that the subjects depicted therein were sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer's attention was not drawn to any one photograph in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection (see People v. Alston, 101 A.D.3d 1672, 1673, 956 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; People v. Weston, 83 A.D.3d 1511, 1511, 921 N.Y.S.2d 754, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 823, 929 N.Y.S.2d 812, 954 N.E.2d 103 ).
Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he stole a credit card. Defendant was observed in the victim's vehicle by two witnesses, and the victim testified that the reloadable VISA card had approximately $100 of credit, that it was not in her wallet that was in the vehicle after defendant exited the vehicle, and that the credit card was cancelled that day (see People v. Howard, 167 A.D.2d 922, 922, 562 N.Y.S.2d 285, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 961, 570 N.Y.S.2d 495, 573 N.E.2d 583 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this bench trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the court did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded and, thus, we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61 ; Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.