From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

KA 00-02428

February 7, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Geraci, Jr., J.), entered July 7, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree.

EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), For Defendant-appellant.

HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL J. NOLAN OF COUNSEL), For Plaintiff-respondent.

PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., SCUDDER, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of rape in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.35 [1]), sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50 [1]) and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (§ 135.05). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in failing to suppress the showup identification of him by the victim on the ground that it was not conducted promptly after the crime occurred (see CPL 470.05). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Defendant was apprehended around the corner from the scene of the crime several minutes after the victim fled the scene and called the police. Thus we conclude that the showup "was properly conducted in the interest of prompt identification" (People v. Amin, 294 A.D.2d 863, 864, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 672, 674; see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544). We reject defendant's further contention that the showup was unduly suggestive on the ground that a police officer told the victim that another officer was bringing a suspect wearing clothing that matched the description of the clothing given by the victim. The victim and defendant were seated in separate police vehicles in a parking lot and defendant was visible only from the chest up. We conclude that the officer's remark did not render the showup unduly suggestive (see generally People v. Clark, 280 A.D.2d 979, 980, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 827), especially in light of defendant's distinctive hair color.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-respondent, v. GARY MORGAN…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 538

Citing Cases

People v. Santiago

Thus, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contentions that the showup procedure was…

People v. Hankerson

A single reference by the prosecutor to defendant's agreement to waive that right does not constitute "`an…