People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 January 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael K. JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nancy Chadrjian, New York City, for appellant.
Jeanine Pirro, Dist. Atty., White Plains (John B. Cherico and Richard Longworth Hecht, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and THOMPSON, COPERTINO and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered March 9, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 photographic array from which he was identified was not impermissibly suggestive. Review of the array demonstrates that a majority of the subjects had skin tones similar to that of the defendant, especially when differences in lighting among the various photographs are taken into account. Similarly unavailing is the defendant's claim that his photograph was highlighted because he was clean-shaven. Other photographs in the array depicted individuals who also were clean-shaven or who had extremely sparse facial hair, and as the hearing court accurately observed, the lighting in the defendant's photo made it impossible to discern whether the defendant had facial hair. The defendant's claim that the array was rendered suggestive by the presence of height markings in the photos is likewise without merit, since height markings were either not discernable or not present in a majority of the photographs, and the complainant's immediate identification of the defendant's picture demonstrates that the complainant did not engage in comparing the height of the subjects before making his selection. Accordingly, the individuals depicted in the photographic array were sufficiently similar to the defendant in general physical appearance, including age, coloration, build, attire, pose, and facial features, to negate any likelihood of misidentification, and we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing court's determination denying suppression (see generally, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70; People v. Blake, 170...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sosa-Marquez
...1044, 900 N.Y.S.2d 68 ) and the complainant identified the defendant within seconds of being shown the photograph (see People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 644, 620 N.Y.S.2d 486 ). Under the circumstances, the prosecution was not required to elicit evidence from the complainant that a source indep......
-
People v. Galletti
...he, too, sported the kind of light beard worn by four of the other five subjects in the photographic array (see, e.g., People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 644, 620 N.Y.S.2d 486; People v. Lee, 207 A.D.2d 953, 617 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. Hernandez, supra; People v. Callace, 143 A.D.2d 1027, 533 N.Y......
-
People v. Riddick
...depicted in the photographic array were sufficiently similar to the defendant in general physical appearance (see, People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 644, 620 N.Y.S.2d 486). Likewise, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the two lineup identification procedures were improper. The two l......
- People v. Howard