From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1995
85 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. 1995)

Summary

In People v. Williams (85 N.Y.2d 868 [1995]), independent source was found when a trained undercover testified that he had only a brief viewing of the perpetrator.

Summary of this case from People v. Newman

Opinion

Argued February 15, 1995

Decided March 23, 1995

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Peter P. Rosato, J.

Sally Wasserman, White Plains, for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, White Plains (Christopher Michael Shaw and Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

As the Appellate Division found, and the People now concede, the undercover officer's viewing of a single photograph of defendant two days after the officer participated in a buy and bust operation could not be characterized as a mere confirmatory identification. Although the hearing court took evidence on an independent source for the officer's in-court identification testimony, defendant failed to raise the contention he now urges: that the People could not establish an independent source in the absence of corroborative testimony of the backup officers. His claim is therefore unpreserved.

Nor was the officer's brief viewing of defendant insufficient to establish independent source. Duration of the officer's opportunity to observe was only one of several factors considered by the lower court in reaching its determination that the identification was reliable, an undisturbed finding supported by the record and therefore beyond our review.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1995
85 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. 1995)

In People v. Williams (85 N.Y.2d 868 [1995]), independent source was found when a trained undercover testified that he had only a brief viewing of the perpetrator.

Summary of this case from People v. Newman

In People v. Williams, 85 NY2d 868, 869 (1995), the Court of Appeals, in holding that there was an independent source for an officer's identification of a defendant, noted that "[d]uration of the officer's opportunity to observe was only one of several facts [to be] considered by the lower court.

Summary of this case from People v. Rodriguez
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND WILLIAMS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 1995

Citations

85 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 49
649 N.E.2d 1193

Citing Cases

People v. Allah

Mastan testified that he is also a Rensselaer County Deputy Sheriff. However, even if Mastan's viewing of a…

People v. Rodriguez

See also People v. Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552 (1979) ("In cases in which the defendant's identity is not…