People v. Clark
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 02102 (People v. Clark) 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.
Opinion
| People v Clark |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 02102 |
| Decided on April 10, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on April 10, 2025
No. 61 SSM 1
v
Cadarrell D. Clark, Appellant.
Submitted by Mary M. Whiteside, for appellant.
Submitted by Amy N. Walendziak, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) after a jury trial at which one of the victims identified him as one of the two persons who robbed her at gunpoint while she was seated in the passenger seat of a vehicle in mid-afternoon. Defendant contends that the evidence of identity was legally insufficient because the victim's identification was unreliable as a matter of law. To the extent that defendant preserved his contention for our review, we reject it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), " 'there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt' " (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 81-82 [2004]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, under the circumstances, the court's denial of his request to instruct the jury on photo array procedures does not constitute reversible error (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 658-659 [1994]). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining challenges to the jury instruction for our review (see People v Harper, 7 NY3d 882, 882-883 [2006]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided April 10, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 02102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clark-ny-2025.