People v. Kev (In re Reaves)
| Decision Date | 11 December 2013 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin REAVES, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
112 A.D.3d 746
976 N.Y.S.2d 228
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08275
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Kevin REAVES, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 11, 2013.
[976 N.Y.S.2d 229]
Michael S. Mandel, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered February 15, 2011, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials and identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied, after a hearing, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony from a witness who identified the defendant in both a photographic array and a lineup. While the People's failure to preserve the original photographic array gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness ( see People v. Bridges, 63 A.D.3d 752, 753, 880 N.Y.S.2d 341; People v. Wedgeworth, 156 A.D.2d 529, 548 N.Y.S.2d 790), the People presented evidence to rebut that presumption ( see People v. Bridges, 63 A.D.3d at 753, 880 N.Y.S.2d 341; People v. King, 291 A.D.2d 413, 736 N.Y.S.2d 904; People v. Stokes, 139 A.D.2d 785, 527 N.Y.S.2d 529). Upon our review of the record of the hearing, we find that the photographic array was not suggestive ( see People v. Curtis, 71 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 900 N.Y.S.2d 68). As to the lineup, there is “no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance” (People v. Brown, 89 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 933 N.Y.S.2d 339). Here, the alleged variations in appearance between the fillers and the defendant were not so substantial as to render the lineup impermissibly suggestive ( see People v. Waters, 195 A.D.2d 613, 614, 600 N.Y.S.2d 746; see also People v. Spence, 92 A.D.3d 905, 938 N.Y.S.2d 622; People v. Jean–Baptiste, 57 A.D.3d 566, 567, 868 N.Y.S.2d 724;
People v. Jordan, 44 A.D.3d 875, 876, 843 N.Y.S.2d 450).
The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...the defendant's right to a fair trial (see People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292, 445 N.Y.S.2d 116, 429 N.E.2d 794 ; People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228 ). Thus, the trial court's “evaluation of the likelihood that the impartiality of one or more jurors may have been affec......
-
People v. McDonald, 2008-09292, Ind. No. 1788/06.
...contrary to the majority's conclusion, the People presented sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption (see People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; People v. Bridges, 63 A.D.3d at 753, 880 N.Y.S.2d 341 ). At the Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 ......
-
People v. Ransom
...exercised its discretion in denying the motion (see People v. Licausi, 122 A.D.3d 771, 773, 996 N.Y.S.2d 188 ; People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747–748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; People v. Arena, 70 A.D.3d 1044, 1046–1047, 895 N.Y.S.2d 514 )......
-
Reaves v. Superintendent, 16-cv-2221 (BMC)
...the fillers and the defendant were not so substantial as to render the lineup impermissibly suggestive.People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228, 229 (2d Dep't 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted), leave to app. denied, 22 N.Y.3d 1202, 986 N.Y.S.2d 422 (2014) (table).......