From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1990
158 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 5, 1990

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


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony of Gary McCarthy and Raymond Redeman in accordance herewith, and a new trial is ordered.

We conclude that reversal of the defendant's judgment of conviction is necessary for the reasons stated in People v Rayford ( 158 A.D.2d 482 [decided herewith]).

Additionally, in view of our determination that the showup identification of the defendant and the codefendant Rayford conducted at the scene of the crime was unduly suggestive and, thus, subject to suppression, we need not address the defendant's claim that the hearing court improperly limited his cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding that showup procedure.

For purposes of the retrial, we take this opportunity to note our agreement with the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly precluded his counsel from commenting during his summation that the eyewitnesses' identification of the defendant was the result of improper police procedures and that the defendant's trial testimony contradicted his postarrest statement to police. These comments were clearly within the realm of permissible summation and were relevant to the defendant's contention that the eyewitnesses' identification testimony was incredible, and that the postarrest statement made by him to the police was coerced. Although the trial court's rulings do not constitute reversible error, they should be avoided upon retrial.

We reject the defendant's argument that he was entitled to a missing evidence charge with respect to a surveillance film which was made at the scene of the crime. The requested charge was not mandated in this case inasmuch as there was no evidence to establish that the film was ever in the People's possession or control (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1990
158 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WAYNE THOMPSON…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 260

Citing Cases

People v. Carpenter

Pursuant to CPL 240.20 (1) (f), the People have the duty to disclose property "obtained from the defendant,"…