People v. Rios
| Decision Date | 04 December 1989 |
| Citation | 156 A.D.2d 397,548 N.Y.S.2d 348 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony RIOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sharon Weintraub Dashow, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Peter R. Chatzinoff, of counsel; Ben Niderberg and David Leiwant, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BROWN, RUBIN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 24, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the trial established that on April 3, 1986, at about 6:30 P.M., on Union Street between Third and Fourth Avenues in Brooklyn, the defendant and an accomplice dragged the complainant off his bicycle and into the hallway of a nearby building. While holding the complainant in a headlock, the defendant placed a curved carpet knife to the complainant's throat and demanded his money. The defendant and his accomplice then took $35 from the complainant's pocket. Within minutes after the crime, the complainant flagged down a police car, gave the officers a detailed description of his attackers, and then pointed out the perpetrators on the street less than two blocks away. A curved carpet knife and $35 were recovered from the defendant and his companion upon their arrest.
The defendant's motion for a Wade hearing was properly denied because the identification was made spontaneously and was not the product of an identification procedure arranged by the police (see, e.g., People v. Morales, 113 A.D.2d 956, 493 N.Y.S.2d 853; People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445, 467 N.Y.S.2d 287; see also, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 303 N.Y.S.2d 353, 250 N.E.2d 454, cert. denied 396 U.S. 1020, 90 S.Ct. 592, 24 L.Ed.2d 513; People v. Robinson, 117 A.D.2d 826, 499 N.Y.S.2d 758).
Nor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence the defendant's arrest photograph. In the instant case, the defense counsel had "opened the door" during his cross-examination of the complainant to the issue of the defendant's attire. The arrest photographs showed the defendant wearing the red sweatshirt which the complainant had described. It is well established that arrest photographs may be admitted to establish a defendant's appearance at the time of the crime, and the possibility that some aspect of the defendant's appearance might be construed as prejudicial will not suffice to overcome the photographs' relevancy (People v. Logan, supra; People v. Peters, 135 A.D.2d 841, 522 N.Y.S.2d 944).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dey v. Scully
...time of attack," was admissible), appeal dismissed, 87 N.Y.2d 926, 664 N.E.2d 519, 641 N.Y.S.2d 608 (1996); People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397, 548 N.Y.S.2d 348, 349 (2d Dep't 1989) (holding that arrest photograph, showing the defendant wearing a red sweatshirt which the complainant had describ......
-
People v. Dixon
...flags down a police officer and then points to the attackers on the street less than two blocks away (see, People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397, 398, 548 N.Y.S.2d 348). Here, the canvassing of the crime area in the police car was an identification procedure undertaken at the "deliberate direction......
-
People v. Mato
...of the perpetrator of a crime (see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d, at 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924, supra; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397, 548 N.Y.S.2d 348, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 923, 555 N.Y.S.2d 42, 554 N.E.2d 79; People v. Rose, 152 A.D.2d 924, 543 N.Y.S.2d 836, lv denied 74 N......
-
People v. Scott
...18 L.Ed.2d 1149) on the ground that no identification procedure had been conducted by law enforcement authorities ( see People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397, 548 N.Y.S.2d 348; cf. People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 623 N.Y.S.2d 813, 647 N.E.2d 1321). To the extent that the defendant relies upon evid......