People v. Peterkin

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Peterkin

556 N.E.2d 1068, 75 N.Y.2d 985, 557 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 964

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 556 N.E.2d 1068 (People v. Peterkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Peterkin, 556 N.E.2d 1068, 75 N.Y.2d 985, 557 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 964 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338). Defendant argues, however, that he has a right to call the complainant where there has been a showup, an inherently suggestive identification procedure (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523). This argument has no application where, as here, the defendant does not dispute that the showup was made promptly and at the scene of the crime (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023). Nor has he claimed that the complainant’s testimony would have differed in any respect from that offered by the People’s witnesses. In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to call the complainant at the hearing (People v Chipp, supra).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

[987]*987Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338). Defendant argues, however, that he has a right to call the complainant where there has been a showup, an inherently suggestive identification procedure (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523). This argument has no application where, as here, the defendant does not dispute that the showup was made promptly and at the scene of the crime (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023). Nor has he claimed that the complainant’s testimony would have differed in any respect from that offered by the People’s witnesses. In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to call the complainant at the hearing (People v Chipp, supra).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

[987]*987Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 N.E.2d 1068, 75 N.Y.2d 985, 557 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peterkin-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack