People v. Hicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hicks

149 A.D.2d 924, 540 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5925

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 924 (People v. Hicks) 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. Hicks, 149 A.D.2d 924, 540 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court found that defendant’s clothing was seized as a direct result of his unlawful arrest and thus could not be admitted as evidence. At trial the arresting officer testified that he observed a hood on defendant’s jacket after he had ordered defendant to assume a spread-eagle position on the ground. Defendant challenged the officer’s reference to a hood on the basis that the testimony was received in violation of the suppression order. In passing upon this issue, it is enough to note that, if there was error in receiving the testimony, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification evidence was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the challenged testi[925]*925mony might have contributed to the conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We also find that the People did not fail to disclose to defendant exculpatory information (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court found that defendant’s clothing was seized as a direct result of his unlawful arrest and thus could not be admitted as evidence. At trial the arresting officer testified that he observed a hood on defendant’s jacket after he had ordered defendant to assume a spread-eagle position on the ground. Defendant challenged the officer’s reference to a hood on the basis that the testimony was received in violation of the suppression order. In passing upon this issue, it is enough to note that, if there was error in receiving the testimony, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification evidence was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the challenged testi[925]*925mony might have contributed to the conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We also find that the People did not fail to disclose to defendant exculpatory information (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 924, 540 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hicks-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack