People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joseph

191 A.D.2d 646, 595 N.Y.S.2d 116

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 646 (People v. Joseph) 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. Joseph, 191 A.D.2d 646, 595 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), rendered July 16, 1990, 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 defendant contends that the lineup identification was unduly suggestive because he was the heaviest of the participants. We find that, viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup identification, and considering that all of the participants were seated during the viewing which effectively concealed any weight disparity, the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Lundquist, 151 AD2d 505; People v Jackson, 151 AD2d 694).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, 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, Queens County (Savarese, J.), rendered July 16, 1990, 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 defendant contends that the lineup identification was unduly suggestive because he was the heaviest of the participants. We find that, viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup identification, and considering that all of the participants were seated during the viewing which effectively concealed any weight disparity, the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Lundquist, 151 AD2d 505; People v Jackson, 151 AD2d 694).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 646, 595 N.Y.S.2d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joseph-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack