People v. Ahmed
| Decision Date | 07 December 1967 |
| Citation | 20 N.Y.2d 958,286 N.Y.S.2d 850,233 N.E.2d 854 |
| Parties | , 233 N.E.2d 854 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher AHMED, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Daniel F. Kolb and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (John A. K. Bradley and H. Richard Uviller, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The failure of the prosecution to disclose to defense counsel before or during defendant's trial the inability of the robbery victim on the night of the robbery to identify defendant from a police photograph of him, together with the highly suggestive police station identification procedures used here, seriously undermines the credit to which the jury's determination of guilt in this case is entitled. 'That the district attorney's silence was not the result of guile or a desire to prejudice matters little, for its impact was the same, preventing, as it did, a trial that could in any real sense be termed fair' (People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554, 557, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 887, 136 N.E.2d 853, 855; see, also, Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87--88, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196--1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215). Over and above this error, the defendant would be entitled to a remand to the trial court for consideration of the effect upon the in-court identifications of the improper 'show-ups' conducted at the police station (see People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 103).
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morhouse
...are questions beyond our competence to determine in the first instance upon appellate review. (Compare People v. Ahmed, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 233 N.E.2d 854, where the nondisclosure of evidence was brought out on sentencing and the evidence unquestionably would have been helpful ......
-
United States ex rel. Rutherford v. Deegan
...239 A.2d 607 (Ct.Spec. App.1968); People v. Hill, 22 N.Y.2d 686, 291 N.Y.S.2d 802, 238 N.E.2d 913 (1968); People v. Ahmed, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 233 N.E.2d 854 (1967); People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 103 (1967); People v. Brown, 20 N.Y.2d 238, 282 N. ......
-
Lee v. State
...State v. Falkins, 356 So.2d 415 (La.1978), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 190, 58 L.Ed.2d 175; People v. Ahmed, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 233 N.E.2d 854 (1967); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376 (2nd Cir. 1974); Evans v. Janing, 489 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1973); Simos v. Gray, 356 F......
-
People v. Colascione
...concede that there are some cases this way, but the 'modern view' would make this evidence admissible (e.g., People v. Ahmed, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 233 N.E.2d 854; People v. Savvides, 1 N.C.2d 554, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 136 N.E.2d 853) and suggest the rule be clarified. The plea has ......