People v. Beyer

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Beyer

250 N.E.2d 728, 25 N.Y.2d 833, 303 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1167

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 N.E.2d 728 (People v. Beyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Beyer, 250 N.E.2d 728, 25 N.Y.2d 833, 303 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1167 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Following prescribed procedure (see, e.g., People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600, 607), the trial judge conducted voir dire to determine the admissibility of the complaining witness’ in-court identification. It is our conclusion that the record clearly and convincingly supports his finding that the witness’ ability to recognize the defendant was not the product of, or affected by, either the photographs she saw or by the showup in the corridor of the courthouse prior to the trial. (See, e.g., People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600, 606-607, supra; People v. Brown, 20 N Y 2d 238, 243-244; see, also, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301-302.) It was made known to the jury that the witness had previously identified the defendant by means of photographs exhibited to her by the police, and this is also urged as a ground for reversal. (See, e.g., People v. Baker, 23 N Y 2d 307, 322; People v. Christman, 23 N Y 2d 429, 433; People v. Caserta, 19 N Y 2d 18, 21; People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70, 73.) Since this fact was first elicited by the defendant’s own counsel upon cross-examination, the question of its admissibility against the defendant has not been preserved for our review and there is no occasion to reconsider, as requested by the District Attorney, the rule stated in those cases.

We have examined the other arguments advanced by the defendant and find them without merit.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen, concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Following prescribed procedure (see, e.g., People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600, 607), the trial judge conducted voir dire to determine the admissibility of the complaining witness’ in-court identification. It is our conclusion that the record clearly and convincingly supports his finding that the witness’ ability to recognize the defendant was not the product of, or affected by, either the photographs she saw or by the showup in the corridor of the courthouse prior to the trial. (See, e.g., People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600, 606-607, supra; People v. Brown, 20 N Y 2d 238, 243-244; see, also, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301-302.) It was made known to the jury that the witness had previously identified the defendant by means of photographs exhibited to her by the police, and this is also urged as a ground for reversal. (See, e.g., People v. Baker, 23 N Y 2d 307, 322; People v. Christman, 23 N Y 2d 429, 433; People v. Caserta, 19 N Y 2d 18, 21; People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70, 73.) Since this fact was first elicited by the defendant’s own counsel upon cross-examination, the question of its admissibility against the defendant has not been preserved for our review and there is no occasion to reconsider, as requested by the District Attorney, the rule stated in those cases.

We have examined the other arguments advanced by the defendant and find them without merit.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen, concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.E.2d 728, 25 N.Y.2d 833, 303 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beyer-ny-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack