People v. Hutchinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hutchinson

166 A.D.2d 721, 561 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 721 (People v. Hutchinson) 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. Hutchinson, 166 A.D.2d 721, 561 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered November 26, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 record of the suppression hearing concerning the photographic array presented separately to witnesses within a week of the crime and a lineup procedure which took place one year [722]*722later demonstrates that both procedures were fair and were conducted without suggestion as to which individual, if any, should be identified. The County Court thus properly denied suppression of the identification testimony (see, e.g., People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered November 26, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 record of the suppression hearing concerning the photographic array presented separately to witnesses within a week of the crime and a lineup procedure which took place one year [722]*722later demonstrates that both procedures were fair and were conducted without suggestion as to which individual, if any, should be identified. The County Court thus properly denied suppression of the identification testimony (see, e.g., People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 721, 561 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hutchinson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack