People v. Georgison
| Decision Date | 12 November 2002 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>STEVEN GEORGISON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on preindictment delay was properly denied (see People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241). Although this was a 56-month delay, there was no indication of bad faith by law enforcement or specific prejudice to defendant. The record shows that the prosecution was delayed in good faith because of an extensive undercover investigation into the waste industry cartel. Critically important corroborating evidence was unavailable because of the need to keep the investigation confidential, and this evidence did not become available to the Bronx District Attorney until about four months before defendant's indictment, when the investigation was finally revealed during a New York County trial involving other defendants.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Although the photographic array was no longer available at the time of the hearing, the array was sufficiently reconstructed and any inference of suggestiveness resulting from its loss was rebutted (see People v Cobb, 294 AD2d 199, lv denied 98 NY2d 695; People v Campos, 197 AD2d 366, lv denied 82 NY2d 892). The record supports the court's finding that the array was fair and that defendant was not singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).
Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The statements made by defendant to the police while incarcerated on an unrelated matter were voluntary and admissible. Defendant's incarceration did not require Miranda warnings, since the hearing evidence established that there were no restrictions on defendant's freedom over and above ordinary prison confinement (see People v Alls, 83 NY2d 94, cert denied 511 US 1090). Defendant agreed to be interviewed, and the fact that prison officials moved him to the same visiting room where inmates routinely receive visitors did not constitute the type of restraint requiring Miranda warnings.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant's daughter of tender years from the courtroom.
To the extent that the jury may have heard comments made by the prosecutor at a sidebar conference, any prejudice was cured by the court's immediate curative instruction (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgison v. Donelli
...New York Penal Law § 120.10[4]. Georgison, 2005 WL 1384015, at *3. Following unsuccessful appeals in state court, People v. Georgison, 299 A.D.2d 176, 750 N.Y.S.2d 18 (2002), leave denied, 99 N.Y.2d 614, 757 N.Y.S.2d 825, 787 N.E.2d 1171 (2003), and the denial of his habeas petition in the ......
-
People v. Dobbins
...sufficient evidence of nonsuggestiveness, such as by reconstructing the photo array from related materials ( see People v. Georgison, 299 A.D.2d 176, 750 N.Y.S.2d 18), the People can overcome that presumption ( see People v. Bridges, 63 A.D.3d 752, 753, 880 N.Y.S.2d 341). Here, the People f......
-
People v. Busanet
...N.Y.2d 94, 608 N.Y.S.2d 139, 629 N.E.2d 1018 [1994], cert. denied 511 U.S. 1090, 114 S.Ct. 1850, 128 L.Ed.2d 474; People v. Georgison, 299 A.D.2d 176, 750 N.Y.S.2d 18 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 614, 757 N.Y.S.2d 825, 787 N.E.2d 1171[2003] ). Defendant signed a written consent to be interv......
- Hunter v. LEHRER McGOVERN BOVIS, INC.