People v. Manning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manning

249 A.D.2d 330, 670 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3612

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 330 (People v. Manning) 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. Manning, 249 A.D.2d 330, 670 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 13, 1995, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, under Indictment No. 10311/ 94, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 13, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Coffinas, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under Indictment No. 9753/93. The appeal under Indictment No. 10311/94 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his confession was [331]*331sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses and by the autopsy report to satisfy the requirement of CPL 60.50 that a conviction may not be based solely upon evidence of a confession without additional proof (see, People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185; see also, People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624).

Furthermore, the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327), and in any event, since one of the eyewitnesses who identified the defendant had known the defendant for several years, there was an independent basis for the identification (see, People v Brown, 34 NY2d 879).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 13, 1995, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, under Indictment No. 10311/ 94, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 13, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Coffinas, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under Indictment No. 9753/93. The appeal under Indictment No. 10311/94 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his confession was [331]*331sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses and by the autopsy report to satisfy the requirement of CPL 60.50 that a conviction may not be based solely upon evidence of a confession without additional proof (see, People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185; see also, People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624).

Furthermore, the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327), and in any event, since one of the eyewitnesses who identified the defendant had known the defendant for several years, there was an independent basis for the identification (see, People v Brown, 34 NY2d 879).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 330, 670 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manning-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack