People v. Munnerlyn
This text of 92 A.D.3d 507 (People v. Munnerlyn) 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.
Opinion
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to present expert testimony on eyewitness identification. The threshold inquiry in considering such an application is “deciding whether the case ‘turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime’ ” (People v Santiago, 17 NY3d 661, 669 [2011]). Here, there were two strong eyewitness identifications, as well as many items of [508]*508circumstantial evidence that, when viewed as a whole, provided substantial corroboration. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 A.D.3d 507, 937 N.Y.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munnerlyn-nyappdiv-2012.