People v. Odenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Odenthal

45 A.D.3d 874, 847 N.Y.S.2d 206

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 874 (People v. Odenthal) 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. Odenthal, 45 A.D.3d 874, 847 N.Y.S.2d 206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered March 2, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the showup procedure, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification, was not unduly suggestive (see People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544-545 [1991]; People v Jay, 41 AD3d 615 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, 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 (Carroll, J.), rendered March 2, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the showup procedure, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification, was not unduly suggestive (see People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544-545 [1991]; People v Jay, 41 AD3d 615 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 874, 847 N.Y.S.2d 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-odenthal-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack