People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

301 A.D.2d 616, 753 N.Y.S.2d 853

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 616 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 301 A.D.2d 616, 753 N.Y.S.2d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered March 24, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People met their initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedures (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833). Since the defendant failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the procedures utilized were unduly suggestive, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see People v Chipp, supra).

The defendant’s arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct are partially unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the challenged conduct did not constitute reversible error.

The trial court’s marshaling of the evidence during its jury charge does not require reversal (see People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, cert denied 439 US 1047).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Townes, 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, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered March 24, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People met their initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedures (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833). Since the defendant failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the procedures utilized were unduly suggestive, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see People v Chipp, supra).

The defendant’s arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct are partially unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the challenged conduct did not constitute reversible error.

The trial court’s marshaling of the evidence during its jury charge does not require reversal (see People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, cert denied 439 US 1047).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 616, 753 N.Y.S.2d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack