People v. Hanley
| Decision Date | 16 June 1970 |
| Citation | 261 N.E.2d 905,27 N.Y.2d 648,313 N.Y.S.2d 868 |
| Parties | , 261 N.E.2d 905 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Francis Martin HANLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 32 A.D.2d 1039, 303 N.Y.S.2d 741.
Robert H. Morse, Milton Adler, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas J. Mackell, Kew Gardens (Thomas A. Duffy, Jr., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of second degree robbery.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered judgment, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The Appellate Division held that where victims, who had ample opportunity to observe robber under good lighting conditions, were told to come to court to try to identify someone who fit description they had given to police, and one victim testified that she recognized defendant as he entered courtroom, and other victim testified that she recognized defendant as he was standing in company of several men, and no one pointed defendant out to victims as one who committed robbery, pre-trial identification procedure was not so unnecessary or prejudicially suggestive as to be violative of due process, and in-court identification was not tainted by any potentially misleading circumstances in pre-trial identification. Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissented and filed an opinion.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that pre-trial identification of defendant was so unfair that it constituted a violation of due process under both the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 6 of the New York Constitution, and that defendant's prior felony conviction, which he received at the age of 18, was not a proper predicate for sentencing defendant as a second felony offender.
Judgment modified by remitting the case to Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification of the defendant for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division and, as so modified, affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Whitmore
...hangs or a conviction may hang (see People v. Alston, 27 N.Y.2d 822, 823, 316 N.Y.S.2d 433, 265 N.E.2d 256; People v. Hanley, 27 N.Y.2d 648, 649, 313 N.Y.S.2d 868, 261 N.E.2d 905; People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 416, 311 N.Y.S.2d 292, 296, 259 N.E.2d 727, 730; People v. Burwell, 26 N.Y.2d......
-
U.S. ex rel. Washington v. Vincent, 248
... ... Mr. Levine: ... I move to dismiss this indictment, and I base it upon the assistance that this defendant (Anderson) gave the People in securing (Washington's) murder one conviction ... The Court: Were any promises made to him that a disposition would be made? ... Mr. Levine: I ... ...
-
People v. Ramos
...result was the bolstering of a tainted identification (see People v. Hanley, 32 A.D.2d 1039, 303 N.Y.S.2d 741, mod. 27 N.Y.2d 648, 313 N.Y.S.2d 868, 261 N.E.2d 905; People v. Ames, 49 A.D.2d 514, 370 N.Y.S.2d 91; People v. Cooper, 31 A.D.2d 814, 298 N.Y.S.2d 14). The evidence adduced at the......
- People v. Washington