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

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

DecidedJune 18, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 822 (People v. Valentine) 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. 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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 822, 302 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valentine-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack