People v. Hichez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hichez

139 A.D.3d 453, 29 N.Y.S.3d 787

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

DecidedMay 10, 2016

Docket1082 2672/13

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 453 (People v. Hichez) 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. Hichez, 139 A.D.3d 453, 29 N.Y.S.3d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to preclude identification testimony granted, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. However, the court erred in finding that the People were not required to provide CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice with regard to the identification testimony of a police officer. His brief observation of defendant leaving the scene of the crime, approximately an hour before the identification, was not “so clear that the identification could not be mistaken,” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness (People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 432 [2006]; see also People v Pacquette, 25 NY3d 575 [2015]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to preclude identification testimony granted, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. However, the court erred in finding that the People were not required to provide CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice with regard to the identification testimony of a police officer. His brief observation of defendant leaving the scene of the crime, approximately an hour before the identification, was not “so clear that the identification could not be mistaken,” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness (People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 432 [2006]; see also People v Pacquette, 25 NY3d 575 [2015]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 453, 29 N.Y.S.3d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hichez-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack