People v. Ghee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ghee

42 A.D.2d 860, 346 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 860 (People v. Ghee) 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. Ghee, 42 A.D.2d 860, 346 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 9, 1971, convicting him of two counts of attempted murder, attempted robbery in the first degree, and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed. After the Wade hearing, the court ruled that the photo identification of the appellant by Transit Patrolman Ray was improper and inadmissible in evidence at the trial. However, it refused to make a finding as to whether or not such improper identification poisoned Ray’s subsequent in-court identification of the appellant. Instead, the court stated that it would let the jury pass On the issue of a purported tainted pretrial identification. Such procedure is clearly improper and constituted prejudicial and reversible error (People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600; People v. Lombardi, 18 A D 2d 177, affd. 13 N Y 2d 1014). We therefore remit the matter with a direction that before a new trial is held, a new Wade hearing should be conducted at which proceeding the court will make the required findings (People v. Hicks, 40 A D 2d 836; People v. Growieh, 38 A D 2d 733). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 9, 1971, convicting him of two counts of attempted murder, attempted robbery in the first degree, and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed. After the Wade hearing, the court ruled that the photo identification of the appellant by Transit Patrolman Ray was improper and inadmissible in evidence at the trial. However, it refused to make a finding as to whether or not such improper identification poisoned Ray’s subsequent in-court identification of the appellant. Instead, the court stated that it would let the jury pass On the issue of a purported tainted pretrial identification. Such procedure is clearly improper and constituted prejudicial and reversible error (People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600; People v. Lombardi, 18 A D 2d 177, affd. 13 N Y 2d 1014). We therefore remit the matter with a direction that before a new trial is held, a new Wade hearing should be conducted at which proceeding the court will make the required findings (People v. Hicks, 40 A D 2d 836; People v. Growieh, 38 A D 2d 733). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 860, 346 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ghee-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack