People v. Wintje

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wintje

115 A.D.2d 510, 495 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54916

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 510 (People v. Wintje) 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. Wintje, 115 A.D.2d 510, 495 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), rendered May 11, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There was more than adequate testimony which, if believed by the jury, constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not err in ruling that if defendant testified, the [511]*511complaining witness would be permitted to testify that she recognized his voice as that of her assailant. The same considerations apply in voice identifications as in visual identifications (People v Collins, 60 NY2d 214). Accordingly, just as an in-court visual identification is not precluded by the absence of a prior lineup, the trial court correctly ruled that an in-court voice identification would not be precluded merely because there was no prior voice lineup.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, 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 County Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), rendered May 11, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There was more than adequate testimony which, if believed by the jury, constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not err in ruling that if defendant testified, the [511]*511complaining witness would be permitted to testify that she recognized his voice as that of her assailant. The same considerations apply in voice identifications as in visual identifications (People v Collins, 60 NY2d 214). Accordingly, just as an in-court visual identification is not precluded by the absence of a prior lineup, the trial court correctly ruled that an in-court voice identification would not be precluded merely because there was no prior voice lineup.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 510, 495 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wintje-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack