From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 15, 1989

Appeal from the Erie County Court, Forma, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony of the 10-year-old victim. She readily identified defendant's photograph from an array shown to her at the hospital shortly after the incident. Although not previously aware of defendant's name, she had seen him walking through her neighborhood and once at her home. There is no merit to defendant's claim that the array was suggestive because his hairstyle was distinctive (see, People v Olkoski, 131 A.D.2d 706; People v Hawkins, 126 A.D.2d 747, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1004). Because the array was not suggestive, it did not taint the later lineup identification. We have examined the other issues raised by counsel and by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find that none has merit.


Summaries of

People v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Dean

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES C. DEAN, JR.…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 478

Citing Cases

People v. McGilvary

Consequently, the testimony adduced at the reopened Wade hearing was not necessary to support the…

Dean v. Superintendent, Clinton Correct. Fac

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment of conviction. People v. Dean, 155 A.D.2d…