People v. Lawal
Citation | 73 A.D.3d 1287,900 N.Y.S.2d 515 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Aziza T. LAWAL, Also Known as T, Also Known as Tina, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 13 May 2010 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
73 A.D.3d 1287
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Aziza T. LAWAL, Also Known as T, Also Known as Tina, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 13, 2010.
Joseph Nalli, Fort Plain, for appellant.
Louise K. Sira, District Attorney, Johnstown (James P. Riley of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, SPAIN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Hoye, J.), rendered
In March 2007, a confidential informant (hereinafter CI) contacted the Gloversville Police Department with information about a person named "T" or "Tina" who allegedly sold crack cocaine. Thereafter, the CI made two controlled buys of crack cocaine several hours apart at a laundromat in the City of Gloversville, Fulton County. After the CI identified defendant's photograph in a six-picture photo array as the person who sold him the crack cocaine, defendant was charged by a six-count indictment. Her motion to suppress the identification as unduly suggestive was denied after a Wade hearing. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of two years on each count, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that her suppression motion should have been granted because the pretrial identification procedure used by the police was unduly suggestive. We find that the People
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wells
...out for identification” ( 141 A.D.3d 1018 People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d at 336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 ; see People v. Lawal, 73 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 900 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2010] ; People v. Brown, 169 A.D.2d 934, 935, 564 N.Y.S.2d 834 [1991], lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 958, 570 N.Y.S.2d 492, 573 ......
-
People v. Casanova
...Muniz, 93 A.D.3d 871, 872, 939 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 965, 950 N.Y.S.2d 117, 973 N.E.2d 215 [2012] ; People v. Lawal, 73 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 900 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2010] ). "Accordingly, the relevant characteristics of the individuals included in a photograph array must be suff......
-
People v. Muniz
...A.D.2d 934, 935, 564 N.Y.S.2d 834 [1991], lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 958, 570 N.Y.S.2d 492, 573 N.E.2d 580 [1991]; see also People v. Lawal, 73 A.D.3d 1287, 1288, 900 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2010] ). Nor do the discrepancies between the description provided by Candelaria and defendant's appearance require ......
-
People v. Matthews
...327, 335, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 [1990],cert. denied498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70 [1990];see People v. Lawal, 73 A.D.3d 1287, 1287–1288, 900 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2010] ). Further, defendant did not meet his “ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive”......