Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Monroe County Court to determine whether sufficient evidence could be developed at a reconstruction hearing concerning “defendant’s mental capacity at the time of trial and, if so, to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial” (People v Marasa, 270 AD2d 902 , 903). The record supports the court’s determination following the reconstruction hearing that the People sustained their burden of demonstrating by a fair preponderance of the evidence defendant’s competence to stand trial (see, People v Bey, 167 AD2d 868 ; People v Graham, 139 AD2d 789 , 789-790, lv denied 72 NY2d 860 ; People v Wright, 124 AD2d 1015 , lv denied 69 NY2d 751 ). The court properly-denied that part of the motion of defendant seeking suppression of his statements and items of tangible evidence seized by the police. The police officer’s initial request for information from defendant was “supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” (People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 , 184). Based upon defendant’s response to that initial request, along with information obtained from other
Cases cited
- People v. Marasa 270 AD2d 902 at 903 p. 971
- People v. Bey 167 AD2d 868 p. 971
- People v. Graham 139 AD2d 789 at 789-790 p. 971
- Long Island Savings Bank v. Savage 69 NY2d 751 p. 971
- People v. Hollman 79 NY2d 181 at 184 p. 971
- People v. Battaglia 86 NY2d 755 at 756 p. 972
- People v. Valerio 95 NY2d 924 p. 972
- People v. Sullivan 29 NY2d 69 at 77 p. 972