People v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valentine

32 A.D.2d 822, 302 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3709

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 1969·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered July 12, 1967, convicting defendant of sodomy and rape, both in the first degree, and other crimes, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., dissents and votes to modify the judgment to the extent of remitting the action to the trial court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the “ show-up ” procedure at bar is essentially indistinguishable from that condemned in People v. Hill (22 N Y 2d 686) and therefore this action should be remitted to the trial court for a hearing wherein the People should be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the trial ‘identification of defendant by the female he is alleged to have raped and sodomized was not tainted by the improper “ show-up ” (People v. Hill, supra, p. 688; Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases, pp. 27-40).

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered July 12, 1967, convicting defendant of sodomy and rape, both in the first degree, and other crimes, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., dissents and votes to modify the judgment to the extent of remitting the action to the trial court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the “ show-up ” procedure at bar is essentially indistinguishable from that condemned in People v. Hill (22 N Y 2d 686) and therefore this action should be remitted to the trial court for a hearing wherein the People should be required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the trial ‘identification of defendant by the female he is alleged to have raped and sodomized was not tainted by the improper “ show-up ” (People v. Hill, supra, p. 688; Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases, pp. 27-40).

People v. Valentine, 32 A.D.2d 822, 302 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

32 A.D.2d 822 (People v. Valentine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related