People v. Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cannon

71 A.D.2d 924, 419 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 924 (People v. Cannon) 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. Cannon, 71 A.D.2d 924, 419 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 24, 1978, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress the use of identification testimony. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied. The witness whose identification testimony was suppressed concededly knew the defendant for at least two years. The hearing court acknowledged that fact, but went beyond the proper scope of an identification hearing and suppressed her identification of defendant because it was allegedly "tainted and possibly induced by police connivance”. Under the circumstances of this case that was a question for jury determination and not for the hearing court to pass on. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 24, 1978, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress the use of identification testimony. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied. The witness whose identification testimony was suppressed concededly knew the defendant for at least two years. The hearing court acknowledged that fact, but went beyond the proper scope of an identification hearing and suppressed her identification of defendant because it was allegedly "tainted and possibly induced by police connivance”. Under the circumstances of this case that was a question for jury determination and not for the hearing court to pass on. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 924, 419 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cannon-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack