People v. Feliz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Feliz

251 A.D.2d 134, 674 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6940

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J., at first hearing; Rena Uviller, J., at second hearing, jury trial, and sentencing), rendered June 9, 1992, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to one term of 8 to 16 years and two terms of 7V2 to 15 years, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied in all respects. The first showup, conducted within minutes after the robberies took place, was justified (see, People v James, 192 AD2d 496, 497, lv denied 81 NY2d 1074), and the fact that two witnesses simultaneously viewed defendant did not render the showup impermissibly suggestive, since they were instructed not to say anything until afterwards, when they were questioned separately (see, People v Barnes, 219 AD2d 527, lv denied 87 NY2d 919). The second showup, conducted 20 to 30 minutes after the first one, and held at the hospital where the victim was waiting to be treated for her injuries, was still in close temporal proximity to the crime and was not rendered unnecessary by defendant’s arrest (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541).

[135] The court’s charge concerning the element of intent, when read as a whole, was appropriate (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). The court was under no obligation, in discussing intent, to constantly remind the jury that identity was in issue. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J., at first hearing; Rena Uviller, J., at second hearing, jury trial, and sentencing), rendered June 9, 1992, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to one term of 8 to 16 years and two terms of 7V2 to 15 years, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied in all respects. The first showup, conducted within minutes after the robberies took place, was justified (see, People v James, 192 AD2d 496, 497, lv denied 81 NY2d 1074), and the fact that two witnesses simultaneously viewed defendant did not render the showup impermissibly suggestive, since they were instructed not to say anything until afterwards, when they were questioned separately (see, People v Barnes, 219 AD2d 527, lv denied 87 NY2d 919). The second showup, conducted 20 to 30 minutes after the first one, and held at the hospital where the victim was waiting to be treated for her injuries, was still in close temporal proximity to the crime and was not rendered unnecessary by defendant’s arrest (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541).

[135] The court’s charge concerning the element of intent, when read as a whole, was appropriate (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). The court was under no obligation, in discussing intent, to constantly remind the jury that identity was in issue. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.

People v. Feliz, 251 A.D.2d 134, 674 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 134 (People v. Feliz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related