People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

110 A.D.2d 844, 488 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48750

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Camacho) 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. Camacho, 110 A.D.2d 844, 488 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[845]*845Defendant contends that it was error not to suppress the complaining witness’s in-court identification of him since there was no sufficient independent basis for it. The record reveals that there was indeed a sufficient independent basis for admitting the in-court identification testimony. The witness testified that the robbery occurred on a bright sunny afternoon. He observed defendant for four or five minutes during the robbery. The People “establish[ed] by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the [suppressed] identification” (United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 240), and the in-court identification was therefore properly admitted (see, People v Cobenais, 39 NY2d 968; People v Ganci, 27 NY2d 418, cert denied 402 US 924; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

[845]*845Defendant contends that it was error not to suppress the complaining witness’s in-court identification of him since there was no sufficient independent basis for it. The record reveals that there was indeed a sufficient independent basis for admitting the in-court identification testimony. The witness testified that the robbery occurred on a bright sunny afternoon. He observed defendant for four or five minutes during the robbery. The People “establish[ed] by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the [suppressed] identification” (United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 240), and the in-court identification was therefore properly admitted (see, People v Cobenais, 39 NY2d 968; People v Ganci, 27 NY2d 418, cert denied 402 US 924; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 844, 488 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack