People v. Siplin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Siplin

120 A.D.2d 933, 502 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57016

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

DecidedMay 23, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 933 (People v. Siplin) 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. Siplin, 120 A.D.2d 933, 502 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Regardless of whether the police procedures were unduly suggestive, as defendant argues, we make our own findings, based on the victim’s testimony at the Wade hearing, that there was clear and convincing evidence of an independent basis for her in-court identification of defendant (see, People v Hall, 81 AD2d 644). The victim spent 2 V% daylight hours with defendant and his face was visible. The victim gave a complete physical description of defendant to the police. We find this sufficient to constitute an independent basis (see, People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Mark, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Regardless of whether the police procedures were unduly suggestive, as defendant argues, we make our own findings, based on the victim’s testimony at the Wade hearing, that there was clear and convincing evidence of an independent basis for her in-court identification of defendant (see, People v Hall, 81 AD2d 644). The victim spent 2 V% daylight hours with defendant and his face was visible. The victim gave a complete physical description of defendant to the police. We find this sufficient to constitute an independent basis (see, People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Mark, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 933, 502 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-siplin-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack