People v. Presley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Presley

231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 847 (People v. Presley) 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. Presley, 231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the showup identification should have been suppressed. Defendant was identified by an eyewitness within 15 minutes of the commission of the crime and very near to the crime scene. Although the police officer may have informed the eyewitness prior to the showup that defendant fit the description given by him and defendant was handcuffed at the showup, the proximity of the identification procedure to the time and place of the crime supports the conclusion that the showup was "within the permissible boundaries of the governing legal principles” (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544; see, People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 740; People v Torres, 210 AD2d 875, lv denied 85 NY2d 944; People v Lomack, 174 AD2d 1037, lv denied 79 NY2d 829; People v James, 110 AD2d 1037, 1038). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the showup identification should have been suppressed. Defendant was identified by an eyewitness within 15 minutes of the commission of the crime and very near to the crime scene. Although the police officer may have informed the eyewitness prior to the showup that defendant fit the description given by him and defendant was handcuffed at the showup, the proximity of the identification procedure to the time and place of the crime supports the conclusion that the showup was "within the permissible boundaries of the governing legal principles” (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544; see, People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 740; People v Torres, 210 AD2d 875, lv denied 85 NY2d 944; People v Lomack, 174 AD2d 1037, lv denied 79 NY2d 829; People v James, 110 AD2d 1037, 1038). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-presley-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack