People v. Shippens
| Decision Date | 29 January 1988 |
| Citation | 524 N.Y.S.2d 957,136 A.D.2d 944 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George SHIPPENS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Herbert Greenman, Buffalo, for appellant.
Richard J. Arcara by J. Michael Marion, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DOERR, DENMAN, GREEN, and PINE, JJ.
Defendant seeks a review of the determination of the court which, on remittitur, denied his motion to suppress the identification testimony of the victim. The record supports the court's determination. One-on-one show-ups which are proximate to the arrest in time and place are permissible in the interest of prompt identification, provided that they are conducted without undue suggestiveness by the police (People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948; People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 249, 440 N.Y.S.2d 902, 423 N.E.2d 379; People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 372, 429 N.Y.S.2d 173, 406 N.E.2d 1066; People v. Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 627, 478 N.Y.S.2d 987; cf., People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520). The hearing court's finding that this show-up was not suggestive is borne out by the record. In addition, the record establishes that the victim had an ample opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime and thus there was an independent source for his in-court identification ( see, People v. Adams, supra, 53 N.Y.2d at 251, 440 N.Y.S.2d 902, 423 N.E.2d 379; People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834, 424 N.Y.S.2d 344, 400 N.E.2d 286; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 103). The court properly declined to expand the scope of the hearing to consider whether defendant was illegally seized by the police. Defendant made no such claim either in his pretrial motion papers or at trial. Thus, he could not raise it for the first time at the hearing on remittitur ( see, People v. Shippens, 123 A.D.2d 502, 507 N.Y.S.2d 342).
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Minter
...902; People v. Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970, 540 N.Y.S.2d 105, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 742, 545 N.Y.S.2d 116, 543 N.E.2d 759; People v. Shippens, 136 A.D.2d 944, 524 N.Y.S.2d 957, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1033, 530 N.Y.S.2d 568, 526 N.E.2d 61). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark,......
-
People v. Lomack, 1
...are permissible when conducted proximate in time and place to the alleged crime and to defendant's detention (see, People v. Shippens, 136 A.D.2d 944, 524 N.Y.S.2d 957, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1033, 530 N.Y.S.2d 568, 526 N.E.2d 61; see also, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 5......
- People v. Fenti
-
People v. Shippens
...N.Y.S.2d 568 71 N.Y.2d 1033, 526 N.E.2d 61 People v. Shippens (George) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK MAY 11, 1988 Wachtler, C.J. 136 A.D.2d 944, 524 N.Y.S.2d 957 App.Div. 4, Erie Denied ...