Quedraogo appealed from a judgment convicting him of two counts of unlicensed general vending—one after a nonjury trial, the second upon his guilty plea. The accusatory instruments alleged Quedraogo displayed and offered to sell various merchandise to individuals without a requisite license. It was found such allegations established reasonable cause to believe, and made out a prima facie case that Quedraogo was guilty of the charged offense. The panel concluded the Criminal Court properly denied Quedraogo’s suppression motion as there was no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determination—supported by the record. It was noted the arresting officer’s observations of Quedraogo’s conduct, including displaying a watch from a bag of watches to a group of passersby, and “quickly” throwing it back into the bag when the officers was seen approaching, established probable cause for Quedraogo’s arrest. The panel ruled the suppression court properly declined to suppress Quedraogo’s voluntary and spontaneous statement to the officer that he was “sorry.” Thus, the verdict convicting Quedraogo of unlicensed general vending was supported by legally sufficient evidence, and not against the weight of the evidence. Convictions were affirmed.