People v. Baskerville
Decision Date | 21 April 1969 |
Citation | 32 A.D.2d 555,300 N.Y.S.2d 124 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert BASKERVILLE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for respondent; Harold L. Levy, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Francis M. Verrilli, Brooklyn, for defendant-appellant.
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BENJAMIN, MUNDER, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21, 1968, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and other crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
While it is error to permit a witness to testify as to his prior identification of a defendant by means of photographs (People v. Caserta, 19 N.Y.2d 18, 277 N.Y.S.2d 647, 224 N.E.2d 82), and references by the District Attorney and the court to such testimony as well as the admission into evidence of the photographs themselves were improper (see, e.g., People v. Hunnicutt, 15 A.D.2d 536, 222 N.Y.S.2d 713; see, also, People v. Jennings, 23 A.D.2d 621, 257 N.Y.S.2d 456), these errors do not, in our judgment, necessitate a new trial. The evidence of the complaining witnesses as to identification was positive and convincing. They had defendant under observation for periods ranging up to two minutes in a well-lighted store. They were in very close proximity to him and able to observe his face. In addition, both witnesses were able to supply the police with detailed and apparently accurate descriptions of the perpetrator of the robbery. Under such circumstances, the other evidence of identification being strong and clear, the errors should be disregarded (People v. Milburn, 19 N.Y.2d 910, 281 N.Y.S.2d 98, 227 N.E.2d 893; Code Crim.Pro. § 542).
As should be evident from the foregoing disposition, we also find that the witness Callan's in-court identification was not tainted by the pretrial police station show-up. Nor do we find any violation of defendant's right to due process in the conduct of the initial photographic identification procedure (see Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247).
We have examined defendant's other specifications of error and find them to be without merit (see, e.g., People v. Roden, 21 N.Y.2d 810, 288 N.Y.S.2d 638, 235 N.E.2d 776).
The pretrial identification of defendant by the witnesses at the trial occurred after the effective date of the decisions in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. Because counsel for defendant was not present at the critical stage of the confrontation for the purpose of identification, the evidence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States ex rel. Baskerville v. Fritz
...and introduced the photographs into evidence. On appeal the Appellate Division, Second Department, split three to two. 32 A.D.2d 555, 300 N.Y.S.2d 124 (1969). The majority held that although it was error under state law to permit testimony respecting Miss Callan's photographic identificatio......
-
People v. Mullin
...was ample opportunity in this case for the complainant to view appellant during the commission of the crime (see People v. Baskerville, 32 A.D.2d 555, 300 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Woods, 30 A.D.2d 1040, 294 N.Y.S.2d 761) and the proof of guilt was overwhelming (see People v. Nival, 41 A.D.2d......
-
People v. Osgood
...N.Y.2d 91, 93, 323 N.Y.S.2d 964, 272 N.E.2d 477; People v. Johnson, 32 N.Y.2d 814, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 299 N.E.2d 256; People v. Baskerville, 32 A.D.2d 555, 300 N.Y.S.2d 124, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 966, 318 N.Y.S.2d 499, 267 N.E.2d 274). It has been held that error of this type may be considered ha......
-
People v. Wilson
...and had adequate opportunity to view him during the commission of the crime and during his flight from the scene (People v. Baskerville, 32 A.D.2d 555, 300 N.Y.S.2d 124, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 966, 318 N.Y.S.2d 499, 267 N.E.2d 274). Further, the denial of a motion for an adjournment to procure the......