People v. Mena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mena

287 A.D.2d 394, 731 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 394 (People v. Mena) 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. Mena, 287 A.D.2d 394, 731 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of rape in the first degree, four counts of sodomy in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 66 to 132 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Although defendant’s ponytail figured prominently in the witnesses’ descriptions, the undisputed evidence at the hearing established that defendant and the fillers were positioned in a way that obscured defendant’s ponytail. Defendant never turned sideways during the viewings, and from the perspective of the witnesses viewing the lineup, they could only see the front of defendant’s face. In addition, two other fillers had some length of hair in back. Accordingly, the circumstance of defendant being the only participant in the lineup with a ponytail did not render the lineup unduly suggestive in that it did not create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833; People v Diaz, 138 AD2d 728, lv denied 72 NY2d 858).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of rape in the first degree, four counts of sodomy in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 66 to 132 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Although defendant’s ponytail figured prominently in the witnesses’ descriptions, the undisputed evidence at the hearing established that defendant and the fillers were positioned in a way that obscured defendant’s ponytail. Defendant never turned sideways during the viewings, and from the perspective of the witnesses viewing the lineup, they could only see the front of defendant’s face. In addition, two other fillers had some length of hair in back. Accordingly, the circumstance of defendant being the only participant in the lineup with a ponytail did not render the lineup unduly suggestive in that it did not create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833; People v Diaz, 138 AD2d 728, lv denied 72 NY2d 858).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 394, 731 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mena-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack