Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On September 30, 1983, at approximately 9:15 P.M., a 56-year-old postal worker was attacked and robbed by a group of male teen-agers who left him lying in the street. The victim, whose injuries included a fractured skull and spine, died approximately one month later. Shaif Alomari, an eyewitness to the crime, and Detective Daniel Rizzo testified at the Wade hearing that on November 1, 1983, Mr. Alomari selected the defendant's "mug shot" from a book of photographs shown to him by the detective. After the defendant's arrest, Mr. Alomari selected the defendant, whom he had seen regularly in the neighborhood for over two years, from a lineup. We agree with the hearing court that these procedures were fair and not suggestive. The detective's statement to Mr. Alomari that "one of the people" would be in the lineup did not render it unduly suggestive (see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741; People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 192; People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874). There was no suggestion as to which of the lineup participants was the "one", or as to which of the five young men whose photographs Mr. Alomari had already identified would be in the lineup.
We further find that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statement. Mere knowledge that a defendant has prior involvement in the criminal justice system does not obligate the police to inquire further, absent actual knowledge that a case is pending (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418). Therefore, possession of the defendant's "mug shot", indicating a prior arrest, did not obligate the detective to seek out further information on the status of the arrest from police records or to question the defendant about whether this case was still pending and whether he had counsel on the case (see, People v McEachern, 141 Misc.2d 140).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict without a hearing has been raised and found meritless on the appeals of his two codefendants (see, People v. Taylor, 131 A.D.2d 708, 709, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 938; People v. Bryant, 123 A.D.2d 436, 437). The issue is identical, and the defendant has not set forth any argument requiring a different result.
The defendant's sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive in light of the heinous nature of the crime, and we decline to disturb it (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Finally, we have considered the defendant's remaining claims and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or meritless. Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.