People v. Suber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Suber

282 A.D.2d 480, 723 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3299

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 480 (People v. Suber) 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. Suber, 282 A.D.2d 480, 723 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant’s wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v Brown, 123 AD2d 875) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant’s wife. “Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v Wade (388 US 218; see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552)” (People v Brown, supra, at 876). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant’s wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v Brown, 123 AD2d 875) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant’s wife. “Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v Wade (388 US 218; see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552)” (People v Brown, supra, at 876). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 480, 723 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suber-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack