People v. Fingall
| Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Citation | 24 N.Y.S.3d 704,136 A.D.3d 622 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Laron FINGALL, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
136 A.D.3d 622
24 N.Y.S.3d 704
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Laron FINGALL, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 3, 2016.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and John J. Hughes III of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered January 24, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court did not err in
failing to suppress the lineup identification testimony. While "the fillers used in a lineup must be sufficiently similar to the defendant so that no characteristic or visual clue would orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the
crimes charged" (People v. Jean–Baptiste, 57 A.D.3d 566, 566, 868 N.Y.S.2d 724 ), "[t]here is no requirement ... that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance" (People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 ; see People v. Moore, 118 A.D.3d 916, 918, 988 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; People v. Cintron, 226 A.D.2d 390, 390–391, 640 N.Y.S.2d 242 ). Here, the photographs taken of the lineup reveal that the fillers sufficiently resembled the defendant. Any differences in height and weight were minimized by the fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuckey v. United States
...statute to co-participants who never intended an aggravating factor to occur during the robbery. See, e.g., People v. Fingall, 136 A.D.3d 622, 24 N.Y.S.3d 704, 705 (2d Dep't 2016). ("The court properly instructed the jurors that the prosecution was not required to prove that the defendant h......
-
Stuckey v. United States, 16–CV–1787 (JPO)
...(3rd Dep't 1999) (citing Miller , 87 N.Y.2d at 217, 638 N.Y.S.2d 577, 661 N.E.2d 1358 ); see also, e.g. , People v. Fingall , 24 N.Y.S.3d 704, 705, 136 A.D.3d 622 (2d Dep't 2016) ("[T]he prosecution was not required to prove that the defendant had prior knowledge of another perpetrator's in......
-
People v. Dunaway
...position numbers in front of the participants’ torsos (see People v. Baez, 172 A.D.3d at 894, 100 N.Y.S.3d 93 ; People v. Fingall, 136 A.D.3d 622, 622–623, 24 N.Y.S.3d 704 ). These steps were sufficient to minimize the discrepancy in the weights of the participants in this lineup (see Peopl......
-
People v. Graves
...nonhuman person under section 10.00(7), for there was no such victim to analyze.4 Or perhaps it wasn't (see People v. Fingall, 136 A.D.3d 622, 623, 24 N.Y.S.3d 704 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1132, 39 N.Y.S.3d 113, 61 N.E.3d 512 [2016] ; People v. Cruz, 309 A.D.2d 564, 564–565, 765......