People v. Dorsett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dorsett

182 A.D.2d 507, 582 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073

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

DecidedApril 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 507 (People v. Dorsett) 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. Dorsett, 182 A.D.2d 507, 582 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard E. Bell, J.), rendered November 8, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s claim, the arresting officer’s statement that he "knew the defendant” did not obviate the need to produce defendant before the victims for a showup identification. The officer was entitled to establish defendant’s involvement in the crime in order to determine the existence of "reasonable assurances that [he had] arrested or detained the right person” and the fact that defendant appeared to be handcuffed when identified at the showup does not warrant suppression of the identification evidence (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545). Further, we note that the identification by the second victim was made within 15 minutes of the attempted robbery without aid from the police officer.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard E. Bell, J.), rendered November 8, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s claim, the arresting officer’s statement that he "knew the defendant” did not obviate the need to produce defendant before the victims for a showup identification. The officer was entitled to establish defendant’s involvement in the crime in order to determine the existence of "reasonable assurances that [he had] arrested or detained the right person” and the fact that defendant appeared to be handcuffed when identified at the showup does not warrant suppression of the identification evidence (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545). Further, we note that the identification by the second victim was made within 15 minutes of the attempted robbery without aid from the police officer.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 507, 582 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dorsett-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack