People v. Martinez, 86 N.Y.2d 630 (1995)

To secure an indictment for escape in the first degree, the prosecution needs to demonstrate that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the defendant committed a Class A or Class B felony; the ultimate disposition of the underlying charge is irrelevant.

Summary

Martinez was arrested for selling narcotics (a Class B felony) after an undercover officer radioed that a “positive buy” occurred. While being transported, Martinez escaped. Subsequent lab analysis revealed the substance sold was not narcotics. The Grand Jury indicted Martinez for escape in the first degree. The New York Court of Appeals held that the prosecution only needed to establish that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Martinez committed a Class B felony at the time of arrest, not that the underlying crime was actually committed. The officer’s reasonable belief, based on the undercover’s report, was sufficient.

Facts

An undercover officer negotiated a drug purchase and signaled a “positive buy” to his backup team, describing the seller. Officer Combs, part of the backup team, arrested Martinez based on the description, for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (a Class B felony). Martinez was placed in a police van but escaped during transport. A lab analysis later revealed the substance sold was not narcotics.

Procedural History

The Grand Jury indicted Martinez for escape in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.15 [2]). The Supreme Court dismissed the indictment, finding insufficient evidence of the underlying narcotics crime. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the indictment, concluding that probable cause for the underlying narcotics arrest was sufficient. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether the People presented sufficient evidence of the underlying narcotic crime to support an indictment for escape in the first degree, specifically, whether the People must prove the A or B felony or merely establish probable cause for the arrest of such felony.

Holding

No, because the People need only establish that the police had reasonable cause to believe at the time of the arrest that an A or B felony had been committed; the ultimate disposition of the underlying charge is irrelevant.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the statute (Penal Law § 205.15 [2]) requires only that the defendant have been “arrested for, or charged with” an A or B felony. A person is in custody when restrained by a public officer following an authorized arrest. The key question is whether the police had probable cause to believe an A or B felony had been committed at the time of the arrest.

The court rejected the argument that the prosecution must prove the underlying felony. The degree of escape is based not on the arrestee’s ultimate guilt, but on the potential impact on society of an escaped prisoner charged with a serious crime. The court distinguished cases involving larceny, where value must be proven to establish probable cause for grand larceny. In narcotics cases, the police don’t need to know the exact nature or amount of the drug before making an arrest for criminal sale.

Probable cause exists when an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances “sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” (People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423). The “fellow officer rule” allows an arresting officer to rely on information from another officer with probable cause. Here, Officer Combs relied on the undercover officer’s report of a “positive buy” to reasonably believe Martinez had sold narcotics. According to the court, “[a]lthough it was subsequently revealed that the substance purchased was not a narcotic…[the officers] could reasonably believe, based upon their experience and all the circumstances surrounding the transaction, that defendant had sold narcotics to the undercover.” This was sufficient to support the indictment for escape in the first degree.