People v. Mikel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mikel

237 A.D.2d 982, 654 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3623

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 982 (People v. Mikel) 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. Mikel, 237 A.D.2d 982, 654 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury requires reversal (see, People v Richardson, 234 AD2d 952; see also, People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477). We reject defendant’s contention that a witness did not have an independent basis for her in-court identification of defendant. The suppression court concluded that the photo array identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and held a hearing to determine whether the witness had an independent basis for her identification of defendant. The witness testified that she saw defendant less than a week before the incident in question and observed a frontal view of him in broad daylight. She further testified that she was a passenger in a car with defendant for several hours that same day and that she was in a vehicle with defendant for several hours the night of the incident. Supreme Court properly concluded that there was an independent basis for the witness’s identification (see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 2], 222 AD2d 1073, lv denied 88 NY2d 876; see also, People v Bones, 125 AD2d 931, lv denied 69 NY2d 824; People v Siplin, 120 AD2d 933, lv denied 68 NY2d 817). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury requires reversal (see, People v Richardson, 234 AD2d 952; see also, People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477). We reject defendant’s contention that a witness did not have an independent basis for her in-court identification of defendant. The suppression court concluded that the photo array identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and held a hearing to determine whether the witness had an independent basis for her identification of defendant. The witness testified that she saw defendant less than a week before the incident in question and observed a frontal view of him in broad daylight. She further testified that she was a passenger in a car with defendant for several hours that same day and that she was in a vehicle with defendant for several hours the night of the incident. Supreme Court properly concluded that there was an independent basis for the witness’s identification (see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 2], 222 AD2d 1073, lv denied 88 NY2d 876; see also, People v Bones, 125 AD2d 931, lv denied 69 NY2d 824; People v Siplin, 120 AD2d 933, lv denied 68 NY2d 817). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 982, 654 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mikel-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack