People v. LeCorps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. LeCorps

19 A.D.3d 216, 797 N.Y.S.2d 59

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 216 (People v. LeCorps) 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. LeCorps, 19 A.D.3d 216, 797 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The lineup was not rendered unduly suggestive when, at the victim’s request, the police directed all the participants to come forward and show their teeth, thereby revealing defendant’s particular dental deformity. The record establishes that the victim had already identified defendant at the lineup without viewing any of the participants’ teeth, and only wanted to confirm her initial identification (see People v Thomas, 223 AD2d 610 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1025 [1996]). Moreover, she had previously made a photographic identification of defendant in which the participants’ teeth were not displayed. We *217 also find that there was nothing suggestive about having the lineup participants stand up, since their height differences were insignificant.

The court properly denied defendant’s request to submit criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant had any noncriminal reason for his presence in the victim’s apartment (see People v Mongen, 157 AD2d 82 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 1015 [1990]).

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and unavailing (People v Quinones, 18 AD3d 330 [2005]). Concur— Marlow, J.E, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The lineup was not rendered unduly suggestive when, at the victim’s request, the police directed all the participants to come forward and show their teeth, thereby revealing defendant’s particular dental deformity. The record establishes that the victim had already identified defendant at the lineup without viewing any of the participants’ teeth, and only wanted to confirm her initial identification (see People v Thomas, 223 AD2d 610 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1025 [1996]). Moreover, she had previously made a photographic identification of defendant in which the participants’ teeth were not displayed. We *217 also find that there was nothing suggestive about having the lineup participants stand up, since their height differences were insignificant.

The court properly denied defendant’s request to submit criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant had any noncriminal reason for his presence in the victim’s apartment (see People v Mongen, 157 AD2d 82 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 1015 [1990]).

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and unavailing (People v Quinones, 18 AD3d 330 [2005]). Concur— Marlow, J.E, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 216, 797 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lecorps-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack