From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 10, 1989

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After reviewing the record of the Wade hearing and examining the photo array in question, we conclude that there is no merit to defendant's claim that the photographic array was unduly suggestive. Although only 3 of the 6 photographs in the array were of men wearing glasses, the record is clear that the victim was unsure whether the man who attempted to rob him wore glasses, although it was a possibility. The photo array depicts six males all about the same age with similar facial features and was not so suggestive that the witnesses' attention was drawn to only one subject (see, People v. Dubois, 140 A.D.2d 619, 622, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 911). Moreover, there was no suggestion to the witnesses that defendant's photo was in the array (see, People v. Hernandez, 70 N.Y.2d 833, 835; People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741).


Summaries of

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY DAVIS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 10, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 189

Citing Cases

People v. Sieteski

We disagree. "A photographic array is suggestive when some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's…

People v. Ofield

We reject the contention of defendant that the photo array was unduly suggestive because he was wearing a…