People v. Jeffries
| Decision Date | 08 December 1986 |
| Citation | 509 N.Y.S.2d 131,125 A.D.2d 412 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Larry JEFFRIES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
George T. Dunn, New York City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Brian D. Foley and Darrell Fields, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, LAWRENCE and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered July 7, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, following a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The judge presiding at the Wade hearing properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification testimony since the identification was not the product of an unduly suggestive showup procedure. The record shows that approximately one-half hour after the crime the complainant selected the defendant out of some 20 to 30 people present in a hospital emergency room. Although the arresting officer had previously stated to the complainant that the perpetrators may be at the hospital, he did not state where they were within the hospital or otherwise point them out. In any event, merely "informing a witness that he is going to look at a suspect will not, by itself, vitiate an otherwise proper identification" (see, People v. Osgood, 89 A.D.2d 76, 81, 454 N.Y.S.2d 734). Nor does the fact that the police officer told the eyewitness to be "damn sure" of his identification render the identification inadmissible.
We also reject the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has repeatedly held that where a defendant challenges the complainant's identification by presenting an alibi, the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is for the jury (see, e.g., People v. Campbell, 123 A.D.2d 437, 506 N.Y.S.2d 742 People v. Bonaparte, 114 A.D.2d 964, 495 N.Y.S.2d 229; People v. Cox, 114 A.D.2d 968, 495 N.Y.S.2d 920).
Also without merit is the defendant's claim that the trial court should have found that the People failed to timely disclose Brady material. The defendant became...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guitierres
...People v. Elliot, 283 A.D.2d 183, 183–184, 726 N.Y.S.2d 7; People v. Barham, 216 A.D.2d 477, 478, 628 N.Y.S.2d 554; People v. Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412, 509 N.Y.S.2d 131). Unlike the showup identification of the defendant in People v. McNeil, 39 A.D.3d 206, 209, 834 N.Y.S.2d 99, wherein the ......
-
In re Charles P.
...was unduly suggestive or otherwise improper (see Matter of Nathaniel W., 121 A.D.3d 407, 407, 993 N.Y.S.2d 311 ; People v. Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412, 412, 509 N.Y.S.2d 131, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 882, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 507 N.E.2d 1100 ). Although respondent preserved for our review his conten......
-
People v. Redd
...in such procedures in the name of swift identifications ( see, People v. Griffin, 135 A.D.2d 730, 522 N.Y.S.2d 632; People v. Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412, 509 N.Y.S.2d 131, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 882, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 507 N.E.2d 1100). Where a showup procedure takes place in close proximity to......
- People v. James