People v. Orraca

5 Citing cases

  1. Orraca v. Walker

    53 F. Supp. 2d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)   Cited 43 times
    Declining to decide petition on merits where three claims had not been addressed by state courts and parties would need to make record as to some of the claims

    (Pet. ¶¶ 1-4.) See People v. Orraca, 237 A.D.2d 148, 148, 655 N.Y.S.2d 7, 8 (1st Dep't), appeal denied, 90 N Y2d 861, 661 N.Y.S.2d 188, 683 N.E.2d 1062 (1997). Orraca's conviction arose from the June 1, 1992 shooting death of Israel Martinez, and the July 30, 1992 police chase and arrest of Orraca.

  2. People v. Flournoy

    56 A.D.3d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    However, the error was harmless. The evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the lineup identification, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction ( see People v Meadows, 64 NY2d 956, 957-958, cert denied 474 US 820; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Orraca, 237 AD2d 148, 149). The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).

  3. People v. Capers

    298 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    In People v. Capers, 298 A.D.2d 184, 184, 748 N.Y.S.2d 142 [1st Dept.2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 580, 755 N.Y.S.2d 716, 785 N.E.2d 738 (2003), the defendant “chose to wear [the jacket] to the police station.

    The police were appropriately concerned that the jacket may have contained a weapon (see People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309). Furthermore, the incriminating nature of a key with a distinctive marking found in the jacket was readily apparent, given the other information already known to the arresting officer. The motion court also properly determined that defendant's right to counsel at a lineup was not violated. The record establishes that no attorney had entered the case (compare People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670), that the arresting officer had no indication that the defendant had an open case in which he was represented by counsel, and that defendant never said that he had a lawyer or that he wanted such lawyer to attend the lineup (see People v. Perez, 251 A.D.2d 189, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 929;People v. Orraca, 237 A.D.2d 148, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 861). When, in response to police questioning, defendant stated that he "wanted a lawyer" and said "Talk to my lawyer," this was no indication that he already had a lawyer. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion, made on the ground that precluded evidence had been elicited.

  4. People v. Jones

    258 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

    The People established by clear and convincing evidence that there was an independent source for the in-court identification of defendant by an eyewitness whose showup identification had been suppressed as unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Gutierrez, 235 A.D.2d 221, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1093). Even if admission of this in-court identification was erroneous, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see, People v. Orraca, 237 A.D.2d 148, 149, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 861). The People established a proper chain of custody for the bullet recovered from the victim during surgery ( see, People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340).

  5. People v. Perez

    251 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    There was no evidence that the investigating officer knew of defendant's outstanding arrest warrant, and no indication that defendant was represented by counsel in the prior matter, much less that the officer was aware of such representation. Moreover, although defendant ultimately refused to talk to police, and asked to speak to an attorney, such request "did not constitute an explicit request for the presence of an attorney at the lineup" ( People v. Orraca, 237 A.D.2d 148, 149, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 861). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.