From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 6, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.).


The showup procedure challenged by defendant was proper, since it took place within close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and was part of an unbroken chain of events ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545). The fact that two other individuals had already identified defendant did not render the procedure unnecessary, the circumstance that defendant was handcuffed and receiving emergency medical treatment at the time did not render the procedure unduly suggestive, and since there is no evidence that the identification was in any way influenced by word or action of anyone at the scene, the procedure did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification ( id.).

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by any of the credibility arguments of the prosecutor during summation, which, when objectionable were promptly cured by curative instructions. To the extent the summation exceeded the bounds of propriety, it does not warrant reversal.

Defendant's challenges to the court's marshaling of the identification evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claims, we would find nothing unfair about the court's references to testimony.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Ramos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE RAMOS, Appellant

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

Date published: May 6, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 199

Citing Cases

People v. Green

As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. We have considered and rejected defendant's…