People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Young

133 A.D.2d 656, 519 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51696

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 656 (People v. Young) 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. Young, 133 A.D.2d 656, 519 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), rendered February 18, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed due to the alleged suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures is without merit. We agree with the hearing court’s determination that the People clearly established an independent basis for both the in-court and lineup identifications (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241; People v Watkins, 121 AD2d 583, lv denied 68 NY2d 918; People v Lynch, 117 AD2d 823, lv denied 68 NY2d 670). The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant’s unique features at close range throughout the lA-hour incident. Furthermore, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including both direct and circumstantial evidence of identity, admission of evidence which implicitly bolstered the identification testimony was harmless error (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), rendered February 18, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed due to the alleged suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures is without merit. We agree with the hearing court’s determination that the People clearly established an independent basis for both the in-court and lineup identifications (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241; People v Watkins, 121 AD2d 583, lv denied 68 NY2d 918; People v Lynch, 117 AD2d 823, lv denied 68 NY2d 670). The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant’s unique features at close range throughout the lA-hour incident. Furthermore, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including both direct and circumstantial evidence of identity, admission of evidence which implicitly bolstered the identification testimony was harmless error (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 656, 519 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-young-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack