People v. Castrillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Castrillon

59 A.D.2d 745, 398 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13754

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 745 (People v. Castrillon) 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. Castrillon, 59 A.D.2d 745, 398 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 16, 1975, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although defendant-appellant is correct in his argument that the postindictment lineup held in the absence of counsel was a violation of his rights, there having been no exigent circumstances to justify the holding of the lineup and the denial of a requested postponement (see People v Blake, 35 NY2d 331, 339-340), we find, in the light of the record as a whole, that this was not prejudicial error. The People did show by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification by the witness who identified defendant at the improper lineup had an independent source and was not tainted (see Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 272; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600, 606). The other contentions raised by appellant have been considered and found to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 16, 1975, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although defendant-appellant is correct in his argument that the postindictment lineup held in the absence of counsel was a violation of his rights, there having been no exigent circumstances to justify the holding of the lineup and the denial of a requested postponement (see People v Blake, 35 NY2d 331, 339-340), we find, in the light of the record as a whole, that this was not prejudicial error. The People did show by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification by the witness who identified defendant at the improper lineup had an independent source and was not tainted (see Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 272; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600, 606). The other contentions raised by appellant have been considered and found to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 745, 398 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castrillon-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack