People v. Stephen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stephen

281 A.D.2d 567, 725 N.Y.S.2d 205, 721 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Stephen) 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. Stephen, 281 A.D.2d 567, 725 N.Y.S.2d 205, 721 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered February 18, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and attempted rape 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 showup identification of the defendant, which was conducted in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Bunker, 259 AD2d 757).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPU 470.15 [5]). Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered February 18, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and attempted rape 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 showup identification of the defendant, which was conducted in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Bunker, 259 AD2d 757).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPU 470.15 [5]). Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 567, 725 N.Y.S.2d 205, 721 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stephen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack