People v. Ramos
| Citation | 565 N.Y.S.2d 87,170 A.D.2d 186 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Moses RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1991 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CARRO, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN, WALLACH and SMITH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank J. Blangiardo, J. at hearing, plea and sentence), rendered November 19, 1987, which convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentenced him as a violent predicate felony offender to 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
On December 5, 1989 this Court found that defendant had not waived his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction, rendered upon his plea of guilty, and held defendant's appeal in abeyance pending receipt of the People's brief addressing the correctness of the hearing court's orders denying his motions to suppress his line-up identification and statements he made to the police. 152 A.D.2d 209, 548 N.Y.S.2d 166. These issues are now before us for determination.
Defendant was permitted to choose his place and number in the line-up. All the participants except one had a mustache and beard, as did the defendant. While defendant was the only participant who wore a leather jacket, a situation which should have been avoided, the robbery complainant testified that he paid no attention to the defendant's clothes in the line-up, but rather "picked the person out himself by face."
As to the police officer's remark to the complainant that a suspect was in custody, that does not automatically contaminate the line-up identification (People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443). When a complainant is brought to a police station to view a line-up, it is implicit that the line-up will contain at least one suspect, otherwise there would be no point whatever in conducting the line-up.
Regarding defendant's argument that his oral statements should have been suppressed because he was under the influence of drugs, and because he was not asked to sign the police transcription of the statements, those claims were not raised below and so are not preserved for review (People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jonathan W.
...awareness that the police had a suspect in custody did not render the lineup unduly suggestive (see e.g. People v. Ramos, 170 A.D.2d 186, 186, 565 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept.1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1014, 575 N.Y.S.2d 822, 581 N.E.2d 1068 [1991] ). The fact-finding determination challenged on......
-
In re West
...awareness that the police had a suspect in custody did not render the lineup unduly suggestive ( see e.g. People v. Ramos, 170 A.D.2d 186, 186, 565 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept.1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1014, 575 N.Y.S.2d 822, 581 N.E.2d 1068 [1991] ). The fact-finding determination challenged o......
-
People v. Hayes
...was standing among a sufficient number of persons of similar appearance to ensure that the procedure was fair (People v. Ramos, 170 A.D.2d 186, 565 N.Y.S.2d 87, 88). In reaching this conclusion, we note that the undercover officer had two prior contacts with defendant before the stationhous......
-
People v. Ferrer
...suggestive. Knowledge by a complainant that the suspect is in a lineup does not, of itself, taint the lineup (see, People v. Ramos, 170 A.D.2d 186, 565 N.Y.S.2d 87, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1014, 575 N.Y.S.2d 822, 581 N.E.2d Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and gi......