From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1990
159 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).


At approximately 11:30 P.M. on July 1, 1987, defendant approached the complainant, Laura Horowitz, who had left a theatre on Broadway and 46th Street, and placed his hand inside her shoulder bag. Feeling a tug, complainant turned around in time to see defendant remove his hand, fist clenched, from her bag. Defendant then "touched hands" with codefendant, Angela Nash, who shouted "Go" just before defendant and ran across Broadway.

As complainant grabbed Nash by her shirt, the complainant's husband, an off-duty police officer, chased the fleeing defendant, and caught him two blocks away. Soon after, police officers arrived and defendant was arrested after a showup identification was made by complainant.

On appeal, defendant argues that the showup was improper, and that the court erred as a matter of law in not charging the jury with the lesser included offense of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree.

These arguments are without merit. While crime scene showups are inherently suggestive, they are permissible when conducted in close proximity to time and place of the crime. (People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v Acevedo, 102 A.D.2d 336, 339-340.) Here, the showup occurred within minutes of the crime, and defendant was apprehended only blocks away from the scene, after a chase in which he remained in sight at all times. Nor do we accept defendant's argument that his having been handcuffed and seated in a police car at the time of the showup so tainted this identification as to warrant its suppression. (See, People v Andre A., 146 A.D.2d 704.)

Similarly unpersuasive is defendant's argument concerning the failure to charge the lesser included offense of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree. We have examined this record and conclude that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that would have supported a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense, but not the greater. (CPL 300.50; People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63; People v Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 368.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1990
159 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Muhammad

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MUJAHID MUHAMMAD…

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

Date published: Mar 13, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 267

Citing Cases

People v. Teen

y refused to suppress identification testimony because it allegedly was made under unduly suggestive…

People v. Ortiz

We find no basis to disturb the hearing court's conclusion that the identification was neither police…