From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1994
204 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 19, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).


Defendant and a codefendant were apprehended moments after and in close proximity to the scene of a nighttime street robbery. The victim flagged down a passing police car, pointed out the fleeing perpetrators, pointed out defendant moments later as the police car turned a corner in pursuit, and then provided a prompt on-the-scene confirmatory identification. Codefendant was apprehended nearby, and the victim's jacket was recovered at that location. At trial, the victim positively identified defendant as the perpetrator who had placed a knife or a sharp object to his throat as he demanded the jacket.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 494-495), the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. The knife or sharp object, used in this manner claimed, satisfied the dangerous instrument element of the crime (Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Thomas, 161 A.D.2d 543, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 866).

On the record presented, we find no lack of meaningful representation. Defendant misconstrues the critical distinction between a showup, such as at a precinct house, which is presumptively unreliable (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523), and prompt, on-the-scene confirmatory identifications, which are accorded great reliability (People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). As such, counsel's failure to raise a Riley-type challenge did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation (People v Barshai, 100 A.D.2d 253, 256, lv denied 62 N.Y.2d 804, cert denied 469 U.S. 885). Defendant's bolstering claims are unpreserved for review as a matter of law due to either a failure to object at all or to objection on other grounds (People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1994
204 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANDREW ANDERSON…

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

Date published: May 19, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 25

Citing Cases

State v. Davila

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is…

People v. Soares

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), this evidence…