In re Angel W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Angel W.

82 A.D.3d 523, 918 N.Y.2d 454

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 523 (In re Angel W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Angel W., 82 A.D.3d 523, 918 N.Y.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The record unequivocally establishes that the victim initially identified appellant at a prompt, on-the-scene showup. Later that night, the victim accidentally viewed appellant at the precinct. This was not a police-arranged identification procedure (see People v Cannon, 13 AD3d 159, 160 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]). Moreover, since the victim had just made a reliable identification at the scene of the crime, the second viewing was essentially confirmatory, and it was unlikely to have created a risk of misidentification (see People v Gilbert, 295 AD2d 275 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]). Furthermore, the hearing evidence demonstrated that the victim had an independent source for his identification of appellant. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The record unequivocally establishes that the victim initially identified appellant at a prompt, on-the-scene showup. Later that night, the victim accidentally viewed appellant at the precinct. This was not a police-arranged identification procedure (see People v Cannon, 13 AD3d 159, 160 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]). Moreover, since the victim had just made a reliable identification at the scene of the crime, the second viewing was essentially confirmatory, and it was unlikely to have created a risk of misidentification (see People v Gilbert, 295 AD2d 275 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]). Furthermore, the hearing evidence demonstrated that the victim had an independent source for his identification of appellant. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 523, 918 N.Y.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-angel-w-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack