People v. Baker

151 A.D.2d 1035, 544 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Baker. Read the opinion of the Court — 131 A.D.2d 491

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his pretrial identification. We conclude that the hearing court in denying the suppression motion correctly found that the viewing of defendant by Officer Heil was an inadvertent observation, rather than an intentionally arranged police identification procedure (see, People v Whisby, 48 NY2d 834, 836; People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 193, cert denied 396 US 1020; People v Brown, 123 AD2d 875).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Baker, 151 A.D.2d 1035, 544 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

151 A.D.2d 1035 (People v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Logan
250 N.E.2d 454 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
People v. Whisby
400 N.E.2d 286 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Brown
123 A.D.2d 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)