People v. Jerome
| Decision Date | 17 June 1985 |
| Citation | 111 A.D.2d 874,490 N.Y.S.2d 790 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel JEROME, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ronni Altman Cintron, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Lisa Margaret Smith and Steven Kessler, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 6, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Upon this record, there is no basis to warrant our interference with the factual determinations of the court made at defendant's Wade Huntley hearing (see, e.g., People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726, 469 N.Y.S.2d 137). Consequently, the record adequately supports that court's legal determination that the statements made by defendant to the police were a result of a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights after sufficient warning by the arresting officers (see, e.g., People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 287, 289-290, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327).
Nor does the record support defendant's contention that the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive. Ordinarily, it is incumbent upon the People to preserve a photo array so that a court may determine whether the procedure employed was unduly suggestive (see, e.g., People v. Barber, 96 A.D.2d 1112, 467 N.Y.S.2d 705; People v. Foti, 83 A.D.2d 641, 441 N.Y.S.2d 521). Here, however, the complainant came to the police precinct within hours of the crime and was shown approximately 1,000 photographs over a period of two days, resulting in his identification of defendant. The sheer volume and scope of this procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness and the undue burden of preserving and producing an array of this size justified the People's failure to produce it at the Wade hearing. In addition, both the complainant and the officer who showed him the photographs were subjected to cross-examination as to the nature of the photographs shown to complainant without any resulting indication that the photographs were suggestive in any way. Indeed, this procedure was conducted at a point in the investigation where the police had not yet focused upon any particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McDonald, 2008-09292, Ind. No. 1788/06.
...militates against the presence of suggestiveness' ” (People v. Mason, 138 A.D.2d 411, 412, 525 N.Y.S.2d 694, quoting People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, 874, 490 N.Y.S.2d 790 ; see People v. Fields, 66 A.D.3d 799, 799, 887 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; People v. Ashby, 289 A.D.2d 588, 588, 735 N.Y.S.2d 715 ......
-
People v. Holley
...411, 412, 525 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2d Dept.1988], lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 863, 532 N.Y.S.2d 513, 528 N.E.2d 903 [1988] ; People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, 490 N.Y.S.2d 790 [2d Dept.1985], lv. denied 66 N.Y.2d 764, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 488 N.E.2d 124 [1985] ). In People v. Jerome, for example, the witne......
-
People v. Holley
...411, 412, 525 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2d Dept.1988], lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 863, 532 N.Y.S.2d 513, 528 N.E.2d 903 [1988] ; People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, 490 N.Y.S.2d 790 [2d Dept.1985], lv. denied 66 N.Y.2d 764, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 488 N.E.2d 124 [1985] ). In People v. Jerome, for example, the witne......
-
People v. Busano
...608 ; see also People v. Fields, 66 A.D.3d 799, 887 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; People v. Ashby, 289 A.D.2d 588, 735 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, 490 N.Y.S.2d 790 ). Furthermore, upon our review of the record of the hearing, we conclude that the defendant failed to sustain his ultima......
-
C. Identification Procedures
...A.D.2d 1112, 467 N.Y.S.2d 705 (3d Dep't 1983); People v. Foti, 83 A.D.2d 641, 441 N.Y.S.2d 521 (2d Dep't 1981). [339] People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, 490 N.Y.S.2d 790 (2d Dep't 1985). [340] People v. Jones, 108 A.D.2d 824, 485 N.Y.S.2d 561 (2d Dep't 1985); People v. Mosley, 110 A.D.2d 937......