People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.2d 961,425 N.Y.S.2d 895 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Douglas P. Rutnik, Albany County Public Defender, Albany (Peter A. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Albany County Dist. Atty., Albany (Joselle G. Waters, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, STALEY and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered November 30, 1978, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. He was sentenced to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, having a maximum of four years and a minimum of two years, to run consecutively with any prior sentences then outstanding.
Initially, it is argued that a show-up identification of defendant at the police station by a witness tainted that witness' in-court identification of defendants, and, therefore, the in-court identification should have been suppressed. Upon examination of the record, we find, contrary to defendant's contention, that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification had an independent source based upon the witness' observations during commission of the crime and was not tainted by the show-up identification of defendant at the police station. Consequently, the in-court identification was admissible (People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 103; People v. Simms, 58 A.D.2d 720, 396 N.Y.S.2d 278).
Defendant also maintains that statements made by a co-defendant in violation of that codefendant's constitutional rights were improperly admitted into evidence at his trial. The defendant, however, lacks standing to assert the alleged violation of another's constitutional rights (see People v. Hill, 45 A.D.2d 774, 356 N.E.2d 696; People v. Cardaio, 30 A.D.2d 843, 294 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 988, 302 N.Y.S.2d 818, 250 N.E.2d 227).
We also reject defendant's contention that the judgment must be reversed on the grounds that the trial court improperly received into evidence incriminating statements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Satloff
...the one year sentence imposed upon the appellant was unduly harsh and an abuse of the trial court's discretion (see People v. Miller, 74 A.D.2d 961, 425 N.Y.S.2d 895). GIBBONS, GULOTTA and COHALAN, JJ., LAZER, J. P., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment, wit......
-
People v. Davis
...to assert a violation of the witness's constitutional rights ( see People v. Velez, 155 A.D.2d 708, 548 N.Y.S.2d 272;People v. Miller, 74 A.D.2d 961, 425 N.Y.S.2d 895). The additional claims raised on appeal by the defendant with respect to the prior statement are unpreserved for appellate ......
-
People v. Suhalla
...(Penal Law, § 70.00) and I observe no extraordinary circumstances sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion (see People v. Miller, 74 A.D.2d 961, 425 N.Y.S.2d 895, mot. for lv. to app. den. 50 N.Y.2d 1003, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 409 N.E.2d 1011), or warrant an exercise of this court's di......
-
People v. Patterson
...with such discretion absent extraordinary circumstances (People v. Tagliamonte, 78 A.D.2d 565, 431 N.Y.S.2d 738; People v. Miller, 74 A.D.2d 961, 425 N.Y.S.2d 895, mot. for lv. to app. den. 50 N.Y.2d 1003, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 409 N.E.2d 1011). We find no such circumstances herein. Defendant'......