People v. Williams

237 A.D.2d 986, 656 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3641
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 203 A.D.2d 608

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that [987]*987Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the identification testimony of two witnesses on the ground that they had been exposed to suggestive pretrial identification procedures. We disagree. The People met their burden of showing that the prompt, on-the-scene showups were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833). We reject defendant’s argument that the court failed to make the required findings of fact. The court’s decision establishes that the court credited the testimony of the investigator concerning the manner in which the showup was conducted and did not credit the testimony of defendant. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

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

People v. Williams, 237 A.D.2d 986, 656 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

237 A.D.2d 986 (People v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Chipp
552 N.E.2d 608 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Duuvon
571 N.E.2d 654 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)