People v. Powell

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Powell

490 N.E.2d 536, 67 N.Y.2d 661, 499 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17073

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 4, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 490 N.E.2d 536 (People v. Powell) 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. Powell, 490 N.E.2d 536, 67 N.Y.2d 661, 499 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17073 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant was tried for the robbery of a school teacher which occurred in front of her fourth grade class. The People called as a witness one of the students, 10 years old at the time of trial, who had not made any identification of defendant prior to trial. When the child was unable to identify the defendant, who had shaved off his beard since the time of his arrest, the People were allowed, over objection, to show him a photograph of the defendant taken at the time of his arrest, and to ask him whether he recognized the picture. Under these circumstances, this prompting of an in-court identification through showing this 10-year-old witness the single photograph was improper.

We agree with the Appellate Division that this error, in the context of this case, was not harmless and therefore a new trial is required.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur; Judges Titone and Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

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.

The defendant was tried for the robbery of a school teacher which occurred in front of her fourth grade class. The People called as a witness one of the students, 10 years old at the time of trial, who had not made any identification of defendant prior to trial. When the child was unable to identify the defendant, who had shaved off his beard since the time of his arrest, the People were allowed, over objection, to show him a photograph of the defendant taken at the time of his arrest, and to ask him whether he recognized the picture. Under these circumstances, this prompting of an in-court identification through showing this 10-year-old witness the single photograph was improper.

We agree with the Appellate Division that this error, in the context of this case, was not harmless and therefore a new trial is required.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur; Judges Titone and Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 N.E.2d 536, 67 N.Y.2d 661, 499 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-powell-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack