People v. Dawkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dawkins

71 A.D.3d 782, 895 N.Y.S.2d 735

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 782 (People v. Dawkins) 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. Dawkins, 71 A.D.3d 782, 895 N.Y.S.2d 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered October 23, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in restricting the scope of his cross-examination of the People’s witnesses at the suppression hearing (see People v Francisco, 44 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2007]; People v Savignon, 15 AD3d 289 [2005]; People v McGlothin, 6 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered October 23, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in restricting the scope of his cross-examination of the People’s witnesses at the suppression hearing (see People v Francisco, 44 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2007]; People v Savignon, 15 AD3d 289 [2005]; People v McGlothin, 6 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 782, 895 N.Y.S.2d 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dawkins-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack