From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cicero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 1986
119 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 14, 1986

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


Judgment affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, Criminal Term properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the in-court identification by the complainant on the ground of an improper pretrial identification procedure. The use of an array of six photographs, where it was not alleged that the defendant's photograph was distinctive, provided a fair and constitutionally adequate sample for the identification procedure (see, People v. Rolston, 109 A.D.2d 854). The fact that the photograph of more than one perpetrator of the crime was utilized within the array did not render the identification improper.

In addition, there is no constitutional right to a lineup. That the People choose to proceed solely with a photographic identification did not serve to render the in-court identification improper or unfair (see, People v. Dibble, 46 A.D.2d 829).

The other issue raised by the defendant has been examined and found to be meritless. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cicero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 1986
119 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Cicero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE CICERO…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Muniz

The court's determination that the lineup was fair and nonsuggestive is supported by the record, and we see…

People v. Merrill

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The suppression court correctly ruled that none of the identification…