People v Murphy

Holding The conviction and sentence were affirmed because the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and probable cause to search his pockets, and the defendant waived claims regarding witness identification and missing evidence by failing to object at trial. The court also found no violation of the defendant’s right to be present and no ineffective assistance of counsel based on the existing record.

The court’s words

provided at least reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity" was "at hand"

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

the cooperating witness was sufficiently familiar with defendant, and that his identification of defendant was confirmatory

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

the witness identified defendant by his gang nickname, and explained that he recognized defendant

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

the testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the [man] in the [video] was indeed the defendant"

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

a presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

the failure to record a defendant's presence is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden of rebutting the presumption of regularity

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text

defendant received effective assistance under state and federal standards

2026 NY Slip Op 06533, at the official text