From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 29, 1988
137 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

February 29, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court that the identification of the defendant by the witness Vicente had a source independent of the suggestive photo array (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606-607). The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the area in which the crime took place was well illuminated, and that the witness had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant's face for a period of 40 to 60 seconds both prior to and during the incident. There is no evidence, moreover, that his attention was focused elsewhere during this time (cf., People v Boyce, 89 A.D.2d 623, 624). The findings of the hearing court are thus amply supported by the record, and we decline to disturb its determination (see, People v Bradley, 129 A.D.2d 720, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1001). We further conclude, under all of the circumstances, that the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive, and that there was therefore no basis upon which to suppress the identification testimony of the witness Lee (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114). We note, in this regard, that there is no evidence that the police influenced Lee in her selection of the defendant from the lineup, and that a number of the fillers possessed physical characteristics similar to those specified by the witness in her description of the defendant (see, People v Wong, 133 A.D.2d 184, 185, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 878; People v Scott, 114 A.D.2d 915, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 765; cf., People v Lebron, 46 A.D.2d 776, 777-778). The defendant's remaining contentions with respect to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 29, 1988
137 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Rodriquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE RODRIQUEZ…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 1988

Citations

137 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Dobbins

The remaining fillers, who were all much older than the defendant, were also much taller and much heavier…

People v. Moore

We agree with the hearing court which, upon remittal, found that GiGi Henriquez's identification of the…