People v. Gill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gill

147 A.D.2d 496, 538 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1493

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 496 (People v. Gill) 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. Gill, 147 A.D.2d 496, 538 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), rendered May 8, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly ruled after a Wade hearing that the eyewitness’ observations of the appellant over a period of a month and his observations of the defendant during the robbery constituted an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Accordingly any suggestiveness which may have resulted from the showup identification, which was suppressed, was not prejudicial (People v Ingram, 110 AD2d 852).

The defendant’s contention that a portion of the arresting detective’s testimony, which indicated that a showup had been conducted, violated the Wade ruling and constituted inferential bolstering is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 (Bianchi, J.), rendered May 8, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly ruled after a Wade hearing that the eyewitness’ observations of the appellant over a period of a month and his observations of the defendant during the robbery constituted an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Accordingly any suggestiveness which may have resulted from the showup identification, which was suppressed, was not prejudicial (People v Ingram, 110 AD2d 852).

The defendant’s contention that a portion of the arresting detective’s testimony, which indicated that a showup had been conducted, violated the Wade ruling and constituted inferential bolstering is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 496, 538 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gill-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack