People v. Flow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flow

99 A.D.3d 549, 952 N.Y.2d 178

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 549 (People v. Flow) 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. Flow, 99 A.D.3d 549, 952 N.Y.2d 178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The five bank robberies formed such a distinctive pattern, and were so interconnected, that they could only have been committed by the same person. Fingerprint evidence established defendant’s guilt of one of the robberies, thereby connecting him circumstantially to all of them, and his challenges to the fingerprint evidence are unavailing. In addition, there were reliable identifications as to four of the robberies, as well as other evidence such as surveillance videotapes and photographs.

The court properly declined to reopen the Wade hearing based on trial testimony about conversations between witnesses that occurred before the witnesses separately made lineup identifications. This testimony could not have had any effect on the suppression issue (see People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]). The new information revealed at trial did not contradict any [550]*550hearing testimony (compare People v Olmo, 153 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1989]), and it went to the weight to be accorded the identifications rather than their admissibility (see People v Bazil, 309 AD2d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The five bank robberies formed such a distinctive pattern, and were so interconnected, that they could only have been committed by the same person. Fingerprint evidence established defendant’s guilt of one of the robberies, thereby connecting him circumstantially to all of them, and his challenges to the fingerprint evidence are unavailing. In addition, there were reliable identifications as to four of the robberies, as well as other evidence such as surveillance videotapes and photographs.

The court properly declined to reopen the Wade hearing based on trial testimony about conversations between witnesses that occurred before the witnesses separately made lineup identifications. This testimony could not have had any effect on the suppression issue (see People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]). The new information revealed at trial did not contradict any [550]*550hearing testimony (compare People v Olmo, 153 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1989]), and it went to the weight to be accorded the identifications rather than their admissibility (see People v Bazil, 309 AD2d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 549, 952 N.Y.2d 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flow-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack