People v. Brisco

788 N.E.2d 611, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 179
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 20, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by391 cases

This text of 788 N.E.2d 611 (People v. Brisco) 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. Brisco, 788 N.E.2d 611, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 179 (N.Y. 2003).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[597]*597The sole issue on this appeal is whether the crime scene showup identification of defendant was unduly suggestive when defendant, who was wearing tan shorts and no shirt, was asked to hold a pair of maroon shorts. The maroon shorts belonged to defendant, were found at the house where he was located, and matched the identifying victim’s prior description of the clothing worn by the perpetrator.

We have allowed showup identifications, in the absence of exigent circumstances, where the showup was reasonable under the circumstances — that is, when conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime — and the procedure used was not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828, 831 [1993]). Whether a crime scene showup is unduly suggestive is a mixed question of law and fact. Thus, if record evidence supports the determination below, this Court’s review is at an end.

Here, record evidence supports the conclusion that the procedures used were reasonable under the circumstances. The showup took place at the scene of the crime, within an hour of the commission of the crime, and in the context of a continuous, ongoing investigation.

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

Related

People v. Harris
2025 NY Slip Op 06728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Lowe
2025 NY Slip Op 02610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. George
2025 NY Slip Op 02220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Bailey
2024 NY Slip Op 50997(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
People v. Wright
42 N.Y.3d 708 (New York Court of Appeals, 2024)
The People v. Thomas P. Perdue
New York Court of Appeals, 2023
People v. Colvin
218 A.D.3d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
People v. Garcia
178 N.Y.S.3d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Mayes
2021 NY Slip Op 06706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Smith
2020 NY Slip Op 3947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Norman
2020 NY Slip Op 2567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Jacobs
2020 NY Slip Op 2536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Vazquez
2019 NY Slip Op 7183 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Hilton
2018 NY Slip Op 7981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Wesley
2018 NY Slip Op 6362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Johnson
2018 NY Slip Op 6337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Com. v. Ingram, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
People v. Thomas
2018 NY Slip Op 5706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Perez
2017 NY Slip Op 8722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
788 N.E.2d 611, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 758 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brisco-ny-2003.