People v. Pinkney

156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15284
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 182 (People v. Pinkney) 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. Pinkney, 156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered May 5, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12V2 to 25 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s half-hour nonarrest detention, including his transportation to the precinct, was within the bounds of a lawful investigatory stop (United States v Sharpe, 470 US 675; People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234).

The photographing of defendant and the exhibit of a photo array containing his picture to a complainant at the station house was a reasonable and minimally intrusive means of investigation (People v Hicks, supra, at 242). As a result of that complainant’s identification of defendant’s photograph, the police possessed probable cause to arrest defendant prior to the lineup at which he was also identified.

Defendant’s claim that the court failed to properly instruct [183]*183the jury that the evidence on each count of the indictments should be considered independently is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. Were we to consider it in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless affirm, since the court’s charge and counsel’s summations made clear to the jury that it should consider the evidence of each robbery separately.

Furthermore, we find that the court’s instructions on identification, when read as a whole, conveyed to the jurors the correct standard of proof. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Williams
73 A.D.3d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Giles
300 A.D.2d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Peterson
295 A.D.2d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Perez
293 A.D.2d 329 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Robinson
282 A.D.2d 75 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Gilbo
214 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Mallet
164 Misc. 2d 1009 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Buchta
182 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Jacobo
154 Misc. 2d 540 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. Chisholm
180 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Macon
159 A.D.2d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 A.D.2d 182, 548 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinkney-nyappdiv-1989.