From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1996
225 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 25, 1996

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


Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People satisfied their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedure ( see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; cf., People v Jones, 157 A.D.2d 487). Since the defendant failed to similarly bear his burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive, the Supreme Court properly denied the branch of his motion which was to suppress the identification testimony (see, People v Chipp, supra). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1996
225 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT DIXON, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 25, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 960

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the robbery victim's unequivocal identification of the defendant…

People v. Brinson

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not in police custody when the complainants unequivocally…