People v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valentine

301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 393

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 450 (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, 301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The evidence presented at the Wade hearing, along with the reasonable inferences that the hearing court drew therefrom as set forth in its findings of fact, satisfied the People’s initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any undue suggestiveness (see People v Jackson, 98 NY2d 555), and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of proving that there was a substantial likelihood that he was singled out for identification. The evidence fails to establish that the allegedly suggestive conduct occurred in the presence of the witness who viewed the lineup. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The evidence presented at the Wade hearing, along with the reasonable inferences that the hearing court drew therefrom as set forth in its findings of fact, satisfied the People’s initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any undue suggestiveness (see People v Jackson, 98 NY2d 555), and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of proving that there was a substantial likelihood that he was singled out for identification. The evidence fails to establish that the allegedly suggestive conduct occurred in the presence of the witness who viewed the lineup. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valentine-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack