People v. Tisdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tisdale

114 A.D.2d 869, 494 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53892

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1985·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered April 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At trial, the victim of the crime, when asked whether he had seen defendant prior to identifying him at a lineup, stated that he had seen defendant "in a picture”. This testimony was error because it could have caused the jury to infer that the victim had previously identified defendant in a photograph and that defendant, who did not testify at trial, had a criminal record (see, People v Griffin, 29 NY2d.91; People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18). This error was harmless, however, because proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. The identification testimony was very strong (see, People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584). The victim observed defendant at distances of less than six feet on two separate occasions, one of which included a conversation which lasted for a minute and a half during which time the complainant was looking at defendant’s face. Accordingly, we affirm. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered April 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At trial, the victim of the crime, when asked whether he had seen defendant prior to identifying him at a lineup, stated that he had seen defendant "in a picture”. This testimony was error because it could have caused the jury to infer that the victim had previously identified defendant in a photograph and that defendant, who did not testify at trial, had a criminal record (see, People v Griffin, 29 NY2d.91; People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18). This error was harmless, however, because proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. The identification testimony was very strong (see, People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584). The victim observed defendant at distances of less than six feet on two separate occasions, one of which included a conversation which lasted for a minute and a half during which time the complainant was looking at defendant’s face. Accordingly, we affirm. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

People v. Tisdale, 114 A.D.2d 869, 494 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

114 A.D.2d 869 (People v. Tisdale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related