People v. Ralston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ralston

224 A.D.2d 1035, 638 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1752

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1996·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that there is no evidence to support defendant’s contention that the photographic identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Byrd, 183 AD2d 773, lv denied 80 NY2d 902). Furthermore, the record at the Wade hearing establishes that each of the victims had an independent source for an in-court identification (see, People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600, 606-607). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Scheme to Defraud, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that there is no evidence to support defendant’s contention that the photographic identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Byrd, 183 AD2d 773, lv denied 80 NY2d 902). Furthermore, the record at the Wade hearing establishes that each of the victims had an independent source for an in-court identification (see, People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600, 606-607). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Scheme to Defraud, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Ralston, 224 A.D.2d 1035, 638 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 1035 (People v. Ralston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related