New York Law Review

Tag: citizen informant

  • People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971 (1984): Sufficiency of Evidence for Depraved Indifference Murder

    People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971 (1984)

    Evidence of multiple shots fired at a group of people running away is sufficient to present a question for the jury as to whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder. The court held that the evidence presented—the number of shots fired, the number of people targeted, and their attempts to flee—sufficiently established a question for the jury regarding the defendant’s depraved indifference to human life. The court also found that the jury was properly charged on the definition of “depraved indifference”. An argument concerning the reliability of information from a citizen informant was deemed unpreserved for review.

    Facts

    The defendant fired multiple shots at a group of people who were running towards the door of a poolroom, attempting to escape from him. The defendant was subsequently charged and convicted of depraved indifference murder.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

    2. Whether the argument that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed due to the unestablished reliability of a citizen informant was preserved for review.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the number of shots fired, the number of persons fired at, and the fact that they were running away were sufficient to present a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced “a depraved indifference to human life”.

    2. No, because the issue of reliability was not properly raised in the defendant’s motion papers or during the hearing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the circumstances of the shooting, while perhaps not as egregious as in other cases (e.g., People v. Register), were sufficient to allow a jury to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life. The court emphasized that the jury was instructed to find the defendant’s conduct “beyond being reckless * * * so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes the death of another.” The court emphasized that because there was enough evidence, and the jury was properly instructed, the conviction had to stand.

    Regarding the defendant’s argument about suppressing his statements, the court found it unpreserved because the reliability of the citizen informant was not properly challenged in the initial motion or during the hearing. The court cited People v. Weston and People v. Jenkins to support its position that a peripheral reference during argument is insufficient to preserve an issue for review.

  • People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90 (1975): Probable Cause Based on Identified Citizen Informant Testimony

    People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90 (1975)

    A search warrant may be issued based on the sworn statement of an identified citizen informant who provides firsthand information regarding criminal activity, without requiring independent corroboration of the informant’s reliability.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a search warrant was validly issued based on the sworn affidavit of a named citizen informant who detailed firsthand observations of the defendant’s criminal activity. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving confidential informants, where the informant’s reliability must be independently established. The court reasoned that citizen informants, who report crime out of civic duty, are inherently more reliable than underworld informants and their sworn statements can directly establish probable cause without requiring corroboration. This decision upholds the importance of citizen involvement in law enforcement and provides a practical framework for assessing probable cause based on identified informant testimony.

    Facts

    Kenneth Leone, an 18-year-old, provided a sworn affidavit to police detailing his observations at Douglas Hicks’ residence. Leone stated that he was in Hicks’ bedroom, where Hicks admitted to stealing a safe during a burglary. Hicks opened the safe, revealing marijuana and fireworks. Hicks also claimed that stereo equipment in the room and a new engine/bucket seats for his car were stolen. Leone’s affidavit included his name, address, and telephone number.

    Procedural History

    Based on Leone’s affidavit, a search warrant was issued for Hicks’ residence. Evidence found during the search led to Hicks being indicted for burglary and grand larceny. Hicks’ motion to controvert the search warrant was denied. He pleaded guilty to petit larceny charges, satisfying all indictment charges and a separate charge in District Court. The Appellate Term affirmed the convictions.

    Issue(s)

    Whether probable cause existed to support the issuance of the search warrant based solely on the sworn affidavit of an identified citizen informant, without independent corroboration of the informant’s reliability.

    Holding

    Yes, because the affidavit was a sworn statement of an identified member of the community attesting to facts directly and personally observed, which sufficiently supports the issuance of a search warrant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the traditional two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test (requiring a showing of the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge) does not apply when the affidavit is based on the direct observations of a named citizen informant. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving confidential informants, where the police officer is repeating a story told to him by a “reliable” informant; instead, the information furnished the court came directly from the informer’s sworn statement. The court stated, “Unlike Aguilar and Spinelli, the affiant in this case is not a police officer repeating a story told to him by a ‘reliable’ informant; instead, the information furnished the court came directly from the informer’s sworn statement, without the benefit of filtering by the police.” The court emphasized that citizen informants are inherently more reliable than underworld informants because they act out of civic duty and without expectation of personal gain. The court also noted the safeguards against false information, including the risk of prosecution for false statements and civil liability for malicious prosecution. The court concluded that requiring independent corroboration of a citizen informant’s sworn statement would be absurd and would denigrate the character of public-spirited citizens. The court emphasized that such civic-mindedness should be encouraged and applauded.