People v. McCarter

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Miller

    93 A.D.3d 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    She then contacted authorities and indicated that defendant was the masked person in the surveillance photograph, whereupon police brought an unmasked photograph of defendant for her to view. Since she sufficiently knew defendant and identified him as the perpetrator from a photograph with him masked and before police had presented her with an unmasked photograph (or otherwise indicated to her that he was a suspect), her identification of defendant was not the result of unduly suggestive conduct by police ( see People v. Carter, 57 A.D.3d 1017, 1017–1018, 868 N.Y.S.2d 378 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 781, 879 N.Y.S.2d 57, 58, 906 N.E.2d 1091, 1092 [2009]; see also People v. Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886, 888, 626 N.Y.S.2d 59, 649 N.E.2d 1203 [1995]; People v. McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780, 781, 579 N.Y.S.2d 143 [1992], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 950, 583 N.Y.S.2d 204, 592 N.E.2d 812 [1992] ). Defendant asserts that County Court should have given the jury an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction by the Fulton County Sheriff's Office of the tape of the victim's 911 call.

  2. People v. Vasquez

    199 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, he failed to sustain his burden of proving that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People vChipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Flowers, 150 A.D.2d 721, 722). Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that a prior viewing occurred under the circumstances alleged by the defendant, it would have been accidental and not an unduly suggestive police arranged identification procedure (see, People v McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780; People v Nimmons, 177 A.D.2d 444; People v Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 722). Under the circumstances here, the court did not err by denying the defendant's request to call the complainant as a witness at the suppression hearing (see, People v Taylor, 80 N.Y.2d 1, 15; People v Chipp, supra, at 337-339). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

  3. People v. Washington

    187 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the identification testimony was properly admitted. The complainant's identification of the defendant was spontaneous and was not the result of any police activity (see, People v McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780; People v Harris, 171 A.D.2d 882; People v Whitehead, 154 A.D.2d 493). Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. People v. Dawson

    185 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 120 times

    The defendant contends that a Wade hearing should have been held in response to the branch of his motion which was to suppress identification testimony. We disagree. That branch of the defendant's motion was properly denied because the identification was made spontaneously and was not the product of an identification procedure arranged by the police (see, People v. McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397; People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445). The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rendering a Sandoval ruling by which the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine the defendant as to his previous felony conviction without inquiry into the underlying circumstances (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Blue, 178 A.D.2d 539; People v. Cruz, 176 A.D.2d 751; People v Harvey, 174 A.D.2d 754; People v. Edwards, 159 A.D.2d 583).