People v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 02 July 1991 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rudy HAYES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ROSS, J.P., and CARRO, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 15, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial of four counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to four concurrent, twelve and one-half to twenty-five year terms of imprisonment and a concurrent twelve and one-half to life term, unanimously affirmed.
By order dated June 28, 1990, this court remitted this matter to the Supreme Court, New York County for a Wade hearing, and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim (see, People v. Hayes, 162 A.D.2d 410, 556 N.Y.S.2d 922).
The charges in this case arose out of four sales of small quantities of cocaine and the execution of a warrant on the day of the last sale at the apartment where all the sales took place. On March 13 and 27, 1986 defendant dealt with one undercover officer; on April 1 and 2, 1986 he dealt with another. When the warrant was executed defendant and four other men were taken into custody. Later the same night, the first undercover officer was asked to look at the five men and determine whether he recognized anyone. The undercover officer, who had not seen defendant since March 27, identified defendant as "J.D. Door" and Diogenes Valerio as "J.D. Longhair." During the procedure the five men were confined, but not handcuffed, in a twenty-five by fifteen room.
We now affirm denial of defendant's motion to suppress. The identification procedure utilized in this case was not unnecessarily suggestive. Unlike the circumstances in People v. Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595, 561 N.Y.S.2d 903, 563 N.E.2d 274, defendant was not displayed to the undercover officer under circumstances that amounted to a one-on-one viewing. A formal lineup was not conducted, but the circumstances did not serve to unfairly single out defendant. Defendant was standing among a sufficient number of persons of similar appearance to ensure that the procedure was fair (People v. Ramos, 170 A.D.2d 186, 565 N.Y.S.2d 87, 88). In reaching this conclusion, we note that the undercover officer had two prior contacts with defendant before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kims
...in determining whether the defendant falls within the intended statutory coverage, but are not a per se bar (see e.g. People v. Hayes, 175 A.D.2d 13, 571 N.Y.S.2d 729 [1st Dept.1991] [defendant in a room separated from drugs by French doors]; People v. Andrews, 216 A.D.2d 571, 629 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Kims
...in determining whether the defendant falls within the intended statutory coverage, but are not a per se bar (see e.g. People v. Hayes, 175 A.D.2d 13, 571 N.Y.S.2d 729 [1st Dept.1991] [defendant in a room separated from drugs by French doors]; People v. Andrews, 216 A.D.2d 571, 629 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Robinson
... ... In this connection, the trial court properly granted the prosecutor's request for a jury charge regarding the presumption of knowing possession of drugs found in open view in a private room by those in close proximity thereto (People v. Hayes, 175 A.D.2d 13, 14, 571 N.Y.S.2d 729, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011, 575 N.Y.S.2d 819, 581 N.E.2d 1065). A fair reading of the charge in question indicates that it conveyed the appropriate legal principles (id.) ... Defendant's current claim of a Brady violation is unpreserved by ... ...
- People v. Timmons