From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 1990
162 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 18, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complaining witness had occasion to observe the defendant for approximately 10 minutes after she had discovered him while he was in the process of burglarizing her apartment. Her observations were made at close range and under good lighting conditions. Under these circumstances, the County Court correctly determined that there was an independent basis for the witness's identification of the defendant during trial, and that suppression of the witness's in-court identification was not therefore required, even though she had participated in a suggestive pretrial identification procedure (cf., People v Allah, 158 A.D.2d 605; People v. Finnerty, 152 A.D.2d 635, 636; People v. Hill, 147 A.D.2d 500, 501).

The sentence imposed was appropriate under all of the circumstances of this case. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 1990
162 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRUCE WRIGHT, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 18, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 960