People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Douglas

213 A.D.2d 988, 625 N.Y.S.2d 780

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1995·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05), arising out of the theft of a van.

At a suppression hearing, prior to trial, the prosecutor failed to offer any evidence of the complainant’s identification of defendant on the day of the crime. Defense counsel requested that any identification testimony by the complainant be suppressed. The prosecutor responded that he did not intend to proffer any evidence of an identification procedure and that the complainant could identify only defendant’s clothing. The suppression court denied defendant’s motion.

We conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion because the People offered " 'resemblance’ ” testimony by the complainant, not " 'identification’ ” testimony (People v Sanders, 108 AD2d 316, 319, affd 66 NY2d 906). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05), arising out of the theft of a van.

At a suppression hearing, prior to trial, the prosecutor failed to offer any evidence of the complainant’s identification of defendant on the day of the crime. Defense counsel requested that any identification testimony by the complainant be suppressed. The prosecutor responded that he did not intend to proffer any evidence of an identification procedure and that the complainant could identify only defendant’s clothing. The suppression court denied defendant’s motion.

We conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion because the People offered " 'resemblance’ ” testimony by the complainant, not " 'identification’ ” testimony (People v Sanders, 108 AD2d 316, 319, affd 66 NY2d 906). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Douglas, 213 A.D.2d 988, 625 N.Y.S.2d 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

213 A.D.2d 988 (People v. Douglas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related