From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 20, 1987

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court did not err when it declined to suppress the complainant's identification testimony. The complainant was in the company of the man who raped her for approximately one hour, during which time she had ample opportunity to familiarize herself with his features. She furnished the police with a detailed description of the rapist, and gave them a piece of paper on which he had written his nickname and unlisted home telephone number. Within 24 hours of the incident, the complainant selected the defendant's photograph out of an array and positively identified him at a lineup. We find that there is nothing in the record to indicate that either the photo array or lineup was suggestive (see, People v Chamberlain, 96 A.D.2d 959). In any event, we concur with the hearing court's determination that there was an independent basis for the complainant's in-court identification.

Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power we find that the evidence was sufficient in both quantity and quality to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defendant took the stand and offered an explanation for the complainant's knowledge of his nickname and unpublished phone number, the jury was free to credit the testimony of the complainant over that of the defendant and his alibi witnesses, this court has repeatedly held that the assessment of the witnesses' credibility is a matter reserved primarily for the jury (see, e.g., People v Govan, 127 A.D.2d 690), and under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason for disturbing the jury's determination.

The defendant's argument that the court erred in not giving the jury a special instruction on circumstantial evidence is also without merit (see, People v Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY BENNETT…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Hickman

The two State Troopers who viewed the defendant in a variety of lighting conditions, both in and out of his…

People v. Foust

March 31, 2003. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…