From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 26, 1989

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that testimony relating to a witness's lineup identification should have been excluded from trial. The witness, prior to the lineup, was informed by a detective that the person whose photograph he had picked out of a photographic array was going to be present in the lineup. This fact, in and of itself, did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive where, as here, the identification procedure followed in both the lineup and the photographic array was otherwise proper (People v Wiredo, 138 A.D.2d 652, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 868). We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGELO MARTINEZ…

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

Date published: Jun 26, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
543 N.Y.S.2d 116

Citing Cases

People v. Warren

In any event, there is no basis for the defendant's contention that the Assistant District Attorney's…

People v. Collado

Such an "idea" in and of itself does not render a lineup impermissibly suggestive ( e.g. People v. Tapling,…