People v. Hartsfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hartsfield

210 A.D.2d 949, 621 N.Y.S.2d 988

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Hartsfield) 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. Hartsfield, 210 A.D.2d 949, 621 N.Y.S.2d 988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the showup identification of defendant was conducted promptly and was not unduly suggestive. The showup was conducted in proximity to the crime scenes and to the place of defendant’s arrest and within 55 minutes after the last robbery (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Hendrick, 192 AD2d 1100, lv denied 82 NY2d 755).

Although the court erred by allowing a lay witness to testify at the suppression hearing in defendant’s absence without obtaining a valid waiver of defendant’s right to be present, defendant was acquitted of the charges relating to that witness’s testimony. We conclude, therefore, that defendant’s presence would have been superfluous (cf., People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Balio, J. P., Law-ton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the showup identification of defendant was conducted promptly and was not unduly suggestive. The showup was conducted in proximity to the crime scenes and to the place of defendant’s arrest and within 55 minutes after the last robbery (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Hendrick, 192 AD2d 1100, lv denied 82 NY2d 755).

Although the court erred by allowing a lay witness to testify at the suppression hearing in defendant’s absence without obtaining a valid waiver of defendant’s right to be present, defendant was acquitted of the charges relating to that witness’s testimony. We conclude, therefore, that defendant’s presence would have been superfluous (cf., People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Balio, J. P., Law-ton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 949, 621 N.Y.S.2d 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hartsfield-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack