People v. Burts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burts

162 A.D.2d 1020, 557 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1020 (People v. Burts) 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. Burts, 162 A.D.2d 1020, 557 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence supports the court’s finding, following the remittal hearing (see, People v Burts, 156 AD2d 1010), that Paula Toms’ in-court identification of defendant was based upon a source independent of any taint from a suggestive photo array. At the time of the crime Ms. Toms viewed defendant for several minutes, face to face, from a short distance. It was a sunny day and nothing obstructed her view. Since Toms’ testimony was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions we need not decide whether the identification testimony at trial of Mr. Young, who was deceased at the time of the hearing, was admissible on the remittal hearing (see, CPL 670.10; cf., People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J.— robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence supports the court’s finding, following the remittal hearing (see, People v Burts, 156 AD2d 1010), that Paula Toms’ in-court identification of defendant was based upon a source independent of any taint from a suggestive photo array. At the time of the crime Ms. Toms viewed defendant for several minutes, face to face, from a short distance. It was a sunny day and nothing obstructed her view. Since Toms’ testimony was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions we need not decide whether the identification testimony at trial of Mr. Young, who was deceased at the time of the hearing, was admissible on the remittal hearing (see, CPL 670.10; cf., People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J.— robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 1020, 557 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burts-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack