People v. Bartholomew

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Burns

    281 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 12 times

    Although the evidence adduced at theWade hearing establishes that the witnesses were each present while the other viewed the photo array, the police officer clearly took steps to prevent consultation between the witnesses and to preclude each from observing which photo the other had selected. Consequently, the People met their initial burden of establishing that the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see, Peoplev. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833) and defendant failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of proving that it was (see, id., at 335; People v. Bartholomew, 237 A.D.2d 371, 371-372, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 855). Additionally, each witness had ample opportunity to observe defendant during the events in question and, therefore, their identification of defendant had an adequate independent basis which alone renders such identification testimony admissible (see, People v. Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748, 749). Defendant's assertion that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpersuasive. Evidence is legally sufficient to justify a conviction if "there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences" (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495) from which "`a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt' when the evidence presented is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution" (People v. Tunstall, 278 A.D.2d 585, 586, 717 N.Y.S.2d 685, 687, quoting People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 316).

  2. People v. Knox

    249 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The hearing court properly determined that the defendant's statements were spontaneously made and were not the product of conduct which the police should have known was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response ( see, Rhode Is. v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301; People v. Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). The evidence adduced at the hearing further reveals that the photographic array identification procedures were neither improperly conducted nor unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Bartholomew, 237 A.D.2d 371; People v. Rivera, 135 A.D.2d 667; People v. Magee, 122 A.D.2d 227). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.