People v. Bartholomew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bartholomew

237 A.D.2d 371, 655 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2284

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 371 (People v. Bartholomew) 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

People v. Bartholomew, 237 A.D.2d 371, 655 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered December 7, 1994, convicting him under Indictment No. 1010/94 of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered December 7, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation upon a finding that the defendant had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his adjudication as a youthful offender under Indictment No. 787/93. The appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 1010/94 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Flaherty, J.), of the defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the People adduced sufficient evidence at the pretrial hearing regarding the circumstances surrounding the witnesses’ viewing of photographs, and met the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure. The testimony of the police administrative aide who supervised the viewing of hundreds of photographs by the two witnesses, who were seated at the same table about five feet apart, established that the [372]*372witnesses’ photographic identifications were separate and independent from each other (see, People v Magee, 122 AD2d 227; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748). The defendant failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Byrd, 183 AD2d 773; People v Collymore, 127 AD2d 603, 604).

The defendant’s claims with respect to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered December 7, 1994, convicting him under Indictment No. 1010/94 of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered December 7, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation upon a finding that the defendant had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his adjudication as a youthful offender under Indictment No. 787/93. The appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 1010/94 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Flaherty, J.), of the defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the People adduced sufficient evidence at the pretrial hearing regarding the circumstances surrounding the witnesses’ viewing of photographs, and met the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure. The testimony of the police administrative aide who supervised the viewing of hundreds of photographs by the two witnesses, who were seated at the same table about five feet apart, established that the [372]*372witnesses’ photographic identifications were separate and independent from each other (see, People v Magee, 122 AD2d 227; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748). The defendant failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Byrd, 183 AD2d 773; People v Collymore, 127 AD2d 603, 604).

The defendant’s claims with respect to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 371, 655 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bartholomew-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack