People v. Bellinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bellinger

253 A.D.2d 701, 680 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9689

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 24, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered May 24, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the accidental station house viewing of defendant by one of the victims resulted from the victim’s failure to follow police instructions and was not a suggestive police-arranged identification procedure (see, People v Clark, 85 NY2d 886, 889; People v Nimmons, 177 AD2d 444, lv denied 79 NY2d 922).

According due deference to the court’s assessment of the defense attorney’s proffered explanation for the peremptory challenge that was disallowed, we find that the court properly concluded that the explanation was pretextual (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356, affd 500 US 352). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered May 24, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the accidental station house viewing of defendant by one of the victims resulted from the victim’s failure to follow police instructions and was not a suggestive police-arranged identification procedure (see, People v Clark, 85 NY2d 886, 889; People v Nimmons, 177 AD2d 444, lv denied 79 NY2d 922).

According due deference to the court’s assessment of the defense attorney’s proffered explanation for the peremptory challenge that was disallowed, we find that the court properly concluded that the explanation was pretextual (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356, affd 500 US 352). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

People v. Bellinger, 253 A.D.2d 701, 680 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 701 (People v. Bellinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related