People v. Thompson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Thompson

503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 661, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21264

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 503 N.E.2d 1369 (People v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Thompson, 503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 661, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21264 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to interview and to call to the stand an exculpatory eyewitness who had told the police that she was "eighty percent sure” of her identification of the robbers, but had identified from a photo array two other men as the perpetrators. At a CPL 440.10 hearing, defendant’s attorney testified that he had decided to conduct his defense by cross-examining the People’s sole identification witness, the complainant, who had identified defendant in a lineup conducted nine months after the crime.

As defendant concedes on this appeal, the complainant’s identification testimony objectively could be viewed as weak because of this witness’ limited opportunity to observe the robbers. In these circumstances, the strategy chosen by defense counsel to expose the deficiencies of the evidence of identification through cross-examination of the prosecutor’s *663 own witness, rather than to explore and present other evidence of misidentification, was reasonable (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to interview and to call to the stand an exculpatory eyewitness who had told the police that she was "eighty percent sure” of her identification of the robbers, but had identified from a photo array two other men as the perpetrators. At a CPL 440.10 hearing, defendant’s attorney testified that he had decided to conduct his defense by cross-examining the People’s sole identification witness, the complainant, who had identified defendant in a lineup conducted nine months after the crime.

As defendant concedes on this appeal, the complainant’s identification testimony objectively could be viewed as weak because of this witness’ limited opportunity to observe the robbers. In these circumstances, the strategy chosen by defense counsel to expose the deficiencies of the evidence of identification through cross-examination of the prosecutor’s *663 own witness, rather than to explore and present other evidence of misidentification, was reasonable (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 661, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack