People v. Rumph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rumph

248 A.D.2d 142, 670 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2071

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 142 (People v. Rumph) 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. Rumph, 248 A.D.2d 142, 670 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 24, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied without a hearing. The court had sufficient information before it to conclude, as a matter of law (see, People v Omaro, 201 AD2d 324), that the identification procedure was witness-initiated and was not subject to police suggestiveness where the victim stated that she saw defendant on the street two days after the robbery, called the police, and pointed defendant out to them when they arrived (see, People v Davis, 235 AD2d 262, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1034). Further, contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s use of the Grand Jury transcript to confirm the facts stated in the People’s response was appropriate (see, People v Won, 208 AD2d 393).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning reliability of identification testimony.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 24, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied without a hearing. The court had sufficient information before it to conclude, as a matter of law (see, People v Omaro, 201 AD2d 324), that the identification procedure was witness-initiated and was not subject to police suggestiveness where the victim stated that she saw defendant on the street two days after the robbery, called the police, and pointed defendant out to them when they arrived (see, People v Davis, 235 AD2d 262, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1034). Further, contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s use of the Grand Jury transcript to confirm the facts stated in the People’s response was appropriate (see, People v Won, 208 AD2d 393).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning reliability of identification testimony.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 142, 670 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rumph-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack