People v. Brennan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brennan

222 A.D.2d 445, 635 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 445 (People v. Brennan) 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. Brennan, 222 A.D.2d 445, 635 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered June 30, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s determination that the pretrial identification procedures used by the police in this case were not suggestive. Each witness independently viewed between 1,800 and 2,000 photographs and selected only photographs of the defendant. The photographic procedure, therefore, could in no way be termed suggestive (see, People v Wiredo, 138 AD2d 652).

As to the lineup, the failure of the police to preserve a photograph of the lineup created a presumption of suggestiveness (see, People v Simmons, 158 AD2d 950; People v Foti, 83 AD2d 641). That presumption was rebutted, however, by the other testimony and evidence in the record which demonstrated that the procedures, utilized were not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Simmons, supra). Here, photographs of the lineup fillers were taken approximately 10 months after the original lineup was held, and the police officer who was present at the lineup testified about the height and weight of the fillers, whether they had gained or lost any weight between the lineup and the reconstruction, and their positions in the lineup.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are, for the most part, either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. To the extent there were any errors, they were harmless. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered June 30, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s determination that the pretrial identification procedures used by the police in this case were not suggestive. Each witness independently viewed between 1,800 and 2,000 photographs and selected only photographs of the defendant. The photographic procedure, therefore, could in no way be termed suggestive (see, People v Wiredo, 138 AD2d 652).

As to the lineup, the failure of the police to preserve a photograph of the lineup created a presumption of suggestiveness (see, People v Simmons, 158 AD2d 950; People v Foti, 83 AD2d 641). That presumption was rebutted, however, by the other testimony and evidence in the record which demonstrated that the procedures, utilized were not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Simmons, supra). Here, photographs of the lineup fillers were taken approximately 10 months after the original lineup was held, and the police officer who was present at the lineup testified about the height and weight of the fillers, whether they had gained or lost any weight between the lineup and the reconstruction, and their positions in the lineup.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are, for the most part, either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. To the extent there were any errors, they were harmless. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 445, 635 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brennan-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack