HLAS attorney Philip Rothschild today obtained a reversal of
a resisting arrest conviction in the New York Court of Appeals. The decision in
People
v Finch arose after Syracuse
police repeatedly arrested Mr. Finch for trespassing at the Parkside Commons
apartment complex. Mr. Finch was also charged with resisting arrest following
the third time police arrested him. The mother of Mr. Finch’s son, who lived at
Parkside, informed police during the first arrest that Mr. Finch had permission
to be on the property as her guest. In an earlier appeal, the County Court
reversed the trespass conviction. It said that Mr. Finch could not be a
trespasser, because he was an invited guest of a tenant. County Court
nevertheless upheld the resisting arrest conviction, finding that police had
probable cause to arrest. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the
County Court should have also reversed the resisting arrest charge. Because the
officers were specifically told that Mr. Finch was an invited guest, and had
permission to be at Parkside, they could not reasonably believe that he was a
trespasser. They therefore did not have probable cause to arrest him for
trespass. Since the arrest was unlawful, Mr. Finch could not be charged with
resisting arrest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court also held that Mr.
Finch’s challenge to the sufficiency of the trial evidence of resisting arrest
was preserved by an argument made by counsel before trial. “We hold that, where
a defendant has unsuccessfully argued before trial that the facts alleged by
the People do not constitute the crime charged, and the court has rejected the
argument, defendant need not specifically repeat the argument in a trial motion
to dismiss in order to preserve the point for appeal.”
