People v. Espinal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Espinal

128 A.D.2d 634, 512 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44324

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 634 (People v. Espinal) 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. Espinal, 128 A.D.2d 634, 512 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered April 21, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant was the subject of two suggestive pretrial identification procedures, the trial court properly permitted the complainants to identify the defendant at trial as there were clearly independent bases therefor. Furthermore, a review of the record indicates that the evidence amply supports the jury’s verdict. The defendant was identified by both complainants who testified that the defendant and another man robbed them at gunpoint. The accuracy of this identification presented an issue for the jury’s resolution (see, People v Batts, 111 AD2d 761; People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445), as did any issues which involved assessments of the witnesses’ credibility (see, People v Bauer, 113 AD2d 543; People v Accoo, 126 AD2d 730).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered April 21, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant was the subject of two suggestive pretrial identification procedures, the trial court properly permitted the complainants to identify the defendant at trial as there were clearly independent bases therefor. Furthermore, a review of the record indicates that the evidence amply supports the jury’s verdict. The defendant was identified by both complainants who testified that the defendant and another man robbed them at gunpoint. The accuracy of this identification presented an issue for the jury’s resolution (see, People v Batts, 111 AD2d 761; People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445), as did any issues which involved assessments of the witnesses’ credibility (see, People v Bauer, 113 AD2d 543; People v Accoo, 126 AD2d 730).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 634, 512 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-espinal-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack