People v. March

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. March

271 A.D.2d 700, 707 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 700 (People v. March) 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. March, 271 A.D.2d 700, 707 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered July 25, 1997, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the [701]*701denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the defense counsel argued that the testimony of several of the People’s witnesses contradicted the suppression hearing testimony of the officer who conducted a showup identification of the defendant, and moved for a new hearing on the ground that the officer had committed perjury. The Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Any discrepancies between the testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial were minor (see, People v Mack, 224 AD2d 447) and, in any event, were not dispositive of the issue of whether the showup was unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Sharpe, 259 AD2d 639).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, 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 (Flaherty, J.), rendered July 25, 1997, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the [701]*701denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the defense counsel argued that the testimony of several of the People’s witnesses contradicted the suppression hearing testimony of the officer who conducted a showup identification of the defendant, and moved for a new hearing on the ground that the officer had committed perjury. The Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Any discrepancies between the testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial were minor (see, People v Mack, 224 AD2d 447) and, in any event, were not dispositive of the issue of whether the showup was unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Sharpe, 259 AD2d 639).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 700, 707 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-march-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack