People v. Meachem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meachem

288 A.D.2d 162, 733 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11550

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 162 (People v. Meachem) 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. Meachem, 288 A.D.2d 162, 733 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J., at hearing; Caesar Cirigliano, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 26, 1999, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to reopen the Wade hearing based on evidence adduced at trial. The additional facts surrounding defendant’s arrest that were revealed at trial were of a nature that would necessarily have been within defendant’s personal knowledge (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Morales, 281 AD2d 182). Moreover, defendant’s moving papers in support of his suppression motion indicate that defendant apprised his then-counsel of the facts in question. In any event, the additional information would not have materially affected the determination of the suppression motion (see, People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552). Even if the version of the identification procedure revealed at trial is viewed most favorably to defendant, the procedure was still a proper showup, conducted within a few minutes, as well as within a few blocks, of the crime (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J., at hearing; Caesar Cirigliano, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 26, 1999, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to reopen the Wade hearing based on evidence adduced at trial. The additional facts surrounding defendant’s arrest that were revealed at trial were of a nature that would necessarily have been within defendant’s personal knowledge (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Morales, 281 AD2d 182). Moreover, defendant’s moving papers in support of his suppression motion indicate that defendant apprised his then-counsel of the facts in question. In any event, the additional information would not have materially affected the determination of the suppression motion (see, People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552). Even if the version of the identification procedure revealed at trial is viewed most favorably to defendant, the procedure was still a proper showup, conducted within a few minutes, as well as within a few blocks, of the crime (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 162, 733 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meachem-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack