From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 1984
106 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 3, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the procedures utilized did not impermissibly taint the showup identification of defendant (see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293; People v. Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366). The showup occurred only a short distance away from the scene of the crime, and only a short time after the crime occurred. We recognize that such prompt confirmations insure reliable identifications and aid in the prompt release of innocent suspects (see People v. Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618).

In view of our determination that no error of any significance occurred during this pretrial identification, it is unnecessary to address the other issues raised by defendant. Thompson, J.P., O'Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Holly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 1984
106 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Holly

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GREGORY HOLLY…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

On this appeal defendant claims that his pretrial motion to suppress certain identification testimony was…

People v. Richardson

The showup occurred on the same block as the scene of the crime, within a half hour after the crime occurred.…