From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 1997
239 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 20, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.).


The hearing court properly concluded that the lineup identification was not suggestive, since an examination of the photographs of the lineup reveals that it constituted a "fair grouping" ( People v. Blackwell, 186 A.D.2d 45, 46, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 760). Although defendant was thinner than some of the other women in those photographs, the participants appeared to be of similar skin color, age and height and wore similar hairstyles.

Defendant's contention that she was unduly prejudiced by the admission of limited testimony regarding negative photographic identification is without merit, since defense counsel had "`opened the door'" on that matter during his cross-examination of the investigating detective ( People v. Marrero, 156 A.D.2d 141, 142, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 921).

We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it does not warrant reversal.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 1997
239 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ILA WILSON, Appellant

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

Date published: May 20, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 839

Citing Cases

People v. Roberson

The lineups were not unduly suggestive. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by…

People v. Phillips

Since defendant did not object to any of the testimony he presently cites as "bolstering", his claims are not…