People v. Segura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Segura

129 A.D.3d 871, 9 N.Y.S.3d 889

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

DecidedJune 10, 2015

Docket2013-05477

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 871 (People v. Segura) 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. Segura, 129 A.D.3d 871, 9 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), rendered May 7, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (four counts), unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), and escape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Calabrese, J.), of the suppression of identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of certain showup identifications. The showup identification procedures were conducted in close geographic proximity to the crime, and were reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 [1990]; People v Pinnock, 54 AD3d 780 [2008]).

Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant’s assertion that the trial court was biased. The trial court merely interjected itself into the proceedings to the extent necessary to clarify issues and facilitate the expeditious and orderly progress of the trial (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; cf. People v Williams, 177 AD2d 527 [1991]).

Balkin, J.R, Roman, Maltese and Barros, 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, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), rendered May 7, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (four counts), unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), and escape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Calabrese, J.), of the suppression of identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of certain showup identifications. The showup identification procedures were conducted in close geographic proximity to the crime, and were reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 [1990]; People v Pinnock, 54 AD3d 780 [2008]).

Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant’s assertion that the trial court was biased. The trial court merely interjected itself into the proceedings to the extent necessary to clarify issues and facilitate the expeditious and orderly progress of the trial (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; cf. People v Williams, 177 AD2d 527 [1991]).

Balkin, J.R, Roman, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 871, 9 N.Y.S.3d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-segura-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack