People v. Shannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shannon

182 A.D.2d 567, 582 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Shannon) 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. Shannon, 182 A.D.2d 567, 582 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered September 21, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the murder counts, to run consecutively to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years on the robbery and weapons counts, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant stands convicted of shooting a store employee to death during a supermarket robbery. Defendant’s argument that it was reversible error to permit one of the two store employees who witnessed the shooting but was unable to identify defendant’s picture in a photo array to identify him in court is not preserved for review, no objection having been made to the in-court identification (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the argument is without merit, since the witness’ prior inability to identify defendant from a photograph was relevant to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony (People v Cruz, 167 AD2d 306, Iv denied 77 NY2d 959). Contrary to defendant’s pro se claim, this testimony, along with that of the store manager, fingerprint expert, and medical examiner, was sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s finding that it was defendant who fired a gun into, the victim’s head at close range (see, People v Adams, 165 AD2d 760, lv denied 76 NY2d 983). We have considered defendant’s remaining pro se claims raised in a supplemental brief and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered September 21, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the murder counts, to run consecutively to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years on the robbery and weapons counts, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant stands convicted of shooting a store employee to death during a supermarket robbery. Defendant’s argument that it was reversible error to permit one of the two store employees who witnessed the shooting but was unable to identify defendant’s picture in a photo array to identify him in court is not preserved for review, no objection having been made to the in-court identification (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the argument is without merit, since the witness’ prior inability to identify defendant from a photograph was relevant to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony (People v Cruz, 167 AD2d 306, Iv denied 77 NY2d 959). Contrary to defendant’s pro se claim, this testimony, along with that of the store manager, fingerprint expert, and medical examiner, was sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s finding that it was defendant who fired a gun into, the victim’s head at close range (see, People v Adams, 165 AD2d 760, lv denied 76 NY2d 983). We have considered defendant’s remaining pro se claims raised in a supplemental brief and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 567, 582 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shannon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack