People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robinson

127 A.D.2d 711, 511 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43199

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 711 (People v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 127 A.D.2d 711, 511 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered June [712]*71218, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The victim of the knifepoint robbery testified at the hearing that he was able to clearly see the robber’s face while the robber stood in front of him in clear daylight and removed his wallet and that he believed that a few minutes elapsed while he had the robber under observation. The victim provided the police with a description of the robber’s complexion, hair and height, which the court at the hearing found to be accurate.

The hearing court held that the identification procedure at the station house was unduly suggestive and ordered evidence of it suppressed. The court, however, found that there existed an independent source for an in-court identification by the victim. The latter conclusion is amply supported by the evidence of the victim’s opportunity to view the robber at the time of the robbery, the victim’s high degree of attention and the accuracy of the victim’s initial description of the robber to the police. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown, and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered June [712]*71218, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The victim of the knifepoint robbery testified at the hearing that he was able to clearly see the robber’s face while the robber stood in front of him in clear daylight and removed his wallet and that he believed that a few minutes elapsed while he had the robber under observation. The victim provided the police with a description of the robber’s complexion, hair and height, which the court at the hearing found to be accurate.

The hearing court held that the identification procedure at the station house was unduly suggestive and ordered evidence of it suppressed. The court, however, found that there existed an independent source for an in-court identification by the victim. The latter conclusion is amply supported by the evidence of the victim’s opportunity to view the robber at the time of the robbery, the victim’s high degree of attention and the accuracy of the victim’s initial description of the robber to the police. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown, and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 711, 511 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-nyappdiv-1987.