People v. Doros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Doros

217 A.D.2d 415, 629 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7645

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 415 (People v. Doros) 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. Doros, 217 A.D.2d 415, 629 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Su[416]*416preme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.), rendered August 24, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application to introduce expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification was properly denied. Even assuming that such testimony may, in some circumstances, be admissible in the court’s discretion (see, People v Mooney, 76 NY2d 827), this is clearly not such a case, defendant having made no showing that the psychologist’s expertise extended to pre-planned, prompt identifications by trained undercover police. "[T]he expert testimony on this issue cannot be connected with any facts of this case.” (United States v Downing, 609 F Supp 784, 792, affd 780 F2d 1017.)

Defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to various officers, not present at the sale, whose testimony would have been cumulative at best (People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[416]*416preme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.), rendered August 24, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application to introduce expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification was properly denied. Even assuming that such testimony may, in some circumstances, be admissible in the court’s discretion (see, People v Mooney, 76 NY2d 827), this is clearly not such a case, defendant having made no showing that the psychologist’s expertise extended to pre-planned, prompt identifications by trained undercover police. "[T]he expert testimony on this issue cannot be connected with any facts of this case.” (United States v Downing, 609 F Supp 784, 792, affd 780 F2d 1017.)

Defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to various officers, not present at the sale, whose testimony would have been cumulative at best (People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 415, 629 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-doros-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack