People v. Joseph
| Citation | 44 N.Y.S.3d 115,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08542,145 A.D.3d 916 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jeffrey JOSEPH, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 916
44 N.Y.S.3d 115
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08542
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Jeffrey JOSEPH, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 21, 2016.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered August 19, 2010, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, 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.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The photos in the photo array depicted people who were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance so that there was little likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification based on particular characteristics (see People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 785, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178 ; People v. Ragunauth, 24 A.D.3d 472, 805 N.Y.S.2d 654 ; People v. Galletti, 239 A.D.2d 598, 658 N.Y.S.2d 80 ). There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 ; People v. Ragunauth, 24 A.D.3d at 473, 805 N.Y.S.2d 654, People v. Granger, 18 A.D.3d 774, 794 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; People v. Green, 14 A.D.3d 578, 789 N.Y.S.2d 184 ). The alleged variations in appearance between the defendant and fillers in the lineup were not so substantial as to render the procedure impermissibly suggestive (see People v. Granger, 18 A.D.3d 774, 794 N.Y.S.2d 914 ;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ortiz
...document fell short of the sort of egregious misconduct that would have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Joseph, 145 A.D.3d 916, 917, 44 N.Y.S.3d 115 ; People v. Quezada, 116 A.D.3d at 797, 983 N.Y.S.2d 326 ). Moreover, the Supreme Court's response to the jury note, aft......
-
People v. Robinson
...833 N.E.2d 213 )."Pursuant to CPL 310.30, the trial court must respond meaningfully to any jury request or inquiry" ( People v. Joseph, 145 A.D.3d 916, 917, 44 N.Y.S.3d 115 ; see People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463 ). "The trial court is generally in the......
-
People v. Hall
...785, 785, 978 N.Y.S.2d 862 ). "The factors to be weighed include the duration and conditions of detention, the manifest attitude of the 145 A.D.3d 916police towards the defendant, the existence of threat or inducement, and the age, physical state, and mental state of the defendant" (People ......
-
Cavalry v. Simpson
...for a continued fact-finding hearing to determine whether visitation with the petitioner would be in the best interests of the children 44 N.Y.S.3d 115and for a new determination of the petition...