From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1985
110 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 22, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that it was error not to suppress the complaining witness's in-court identification of him since there was no sufficient independent basis for it. The record reveals that there was indeed a sufficient independent basis for admitting the in-court identification testimony. The witness testified that the robbery occurred on a bright sunny afternoon. He observed defendant for four or five minutes during the robbery. The People "establish[ed] by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the [suppressed] identification" ( United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240), and the in-court identification was therefore properly admitted ( see, People v. Cobenais, 39 N.Y.2d 968; People v. Ganci, 27 N.Y.2d 418, cert denied 402 U.S. 924; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600).

We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1985
110 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Camacho

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL CAMACHO…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Stroud

No further identification procedures were employed. Considering the above in conjunction with the fact that…

People v. Rose

In fact, it appears that Brown was a friend of the defendant who may have been equally available to the…