From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 26, 2002
297 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-05696, 2002-06758

Submitted April 30, 2002.

August 26, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), rendered April 11, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the third degree, menacing in the second degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court, rendered May 17, 2000. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Michael G. Paul, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment and amended sentence are affirmed.

The defendant argues that the photo array identification of him by a witness should have been suppressed on the ground that it was suggestive. Specifically, the defendant claims that he was visibly younger than the other men in the photo array.

A photographic display is suggestive where some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (see People v. Cherry, 150 A.D.2d 475; People v. Dubois, 140 A.D.2d 619, 622). An examination of the eight-picture array employed in this case demonstrates that it was not suggestive. The defendant's appearance and pose did not differ greatly from those of the men in the other photographs. The men, including the defendant, were close in age, had similar hairstyles, skin tones, and facial characteristics (see People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597; People v. Floyd, 173 A.D.2d 211).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 26, 2002
297 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. OMAR WRIGHT, appellant

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

Date published: Aug 26, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
746 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

State v. Carter

The specific bases for the defendant's contentions on appeal that the photographic arrays were unduly…

People v. Walton

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the photo array that was shown to the complainant was not unduly…