From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jul 2, 2019
174 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

9780 Ind. 4178/15

07-02-2019

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Emil GODING, Defendant-Appellant.

Cardozo Criminal Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley Neustadter of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel), for respondent.


Cardozo Criminal Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley Neustadter of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel), for respondent.

Richter, J.P., Tom, Gesmer, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. The showup identification was justified by its close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery (see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544–545, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 [1991] ). Defendant did not preserve any of his present arguments regarding allegedly suggestive features of the identification, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

Even if the victim heard a radio transmission that a suspect had been apprehended, this did not render the identification suggestive, because that transmission "merely conveyed what a witness of ordinary intelligence would have expected under the circumstances" ( People v. Williams, 15 A.D.3d 244, 245, 789 N.Y.S.2d 155 [1st Dept. 2005] lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 771, 801 N.Y.S.2d 266, 834 N.E.2d 1275 [2005] ), and "[i]nherent in any showup is the likelihood that an identifying witness will realize that the police are displaying a person they suspect of committing the crime, rather than a person selected at random" ( People v. Gatling, 38 A.D.3d 239, 240, 831 N.Y.S.2d 157 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 865, 840 N.Y.S.2d 894, 872 N.E.2d 1200 [2007] ). Defendant's remaining arguments are improperly based on trial, rather than hearing, testimony (see People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d 806, 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940 [2000] ), and in any event would not warrant suppression (see Gatling, 38 A.D.3d at 240, 831 N.Y.S.2d 157 ).


Summaries of

People v. Goding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jul 2, 2019
174 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Goding

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Emil Goding…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 2, 2019

Citations

174 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
101 N.Y.S.3d 605
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5322

Citing Cases

Goding v. Capra

The First Department disagreed and affirmed Petitioner's conviction, finding that (i) the “showup…

Goding v. Capra

.” People v. Goding, 174 A.D.3d 404, 404 (1st Dept. 2019). The Appellate Division also noted that the…