People v. Valentine
| Decision Date | 08 July 1976 |
| Citation | 385 N.Y.S.2d 545,53 A.D.2d 832 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Levi VALENTINE, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. H. Rap BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel PETTY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
R. K. Hood, New York City, for respondent.
H. Winestine, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
J. Berman, E. M. Schneider, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
V. J. Herwitz, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
P. M. Wall, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and MURPHY, LUPIANO, CAPOZZOLI and LANE, JJ.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 9th, 1973 and May 30th, 1973, convicting each of the defendants, after trial before Fraiman, J., and a jury, of six counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of assault in the first degree and convicting defendants, Brown and Young, of two counts of felonious possession of a weapon, unanimously affirmed.
It appears that the witness, Jenkins, did not tell the truth when he testified that, in the course of the robbery, a watch, which was later found in the possession of the defendant Petty, was taken from Jenkins' wrist. Following the trial, evidence was allegedly uncovered which tended to establish that the watch was actually purchased by defendant Petty. If the evidence against Petty and his co-defendants was based only on Jenkins' testimony, a new trial might well have to be ordered. But, this is not the case. There is far more evidence than that found in the testimony of Jenkins. Truly the evidence as to the guilt of these defendants is overwhelming.
We note, too, the contention of the defendants that it was error for the Trial Court to refuse to allow Dr. Buckhout to testify as 'an expert on the question or subject of social and perceptual factors which affect eye witness unreliability or reliability'. (R. 8818--19.) Dr. Buckhout was produced for the purpose of offering his expert testimony concerning the factors which, in his opinion, adversely affect the reliability of eye witness identifications. The Trial Court correctly ruled that such testimony would infringe upon a properly instructed jury's power to determine the reliability of the People's evidence. We are of the view that the jury was properly instructed on the subject. Expert opinions were not necessary to enable the jury to comprehend the potential for unreliability. Had the Court permitted this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloodsworth v. State
...(1972); State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 812, 305 N.W.2d 812 (1981); Porter v. State, 94 Nev. 142, 576 P.2d 275 (1978); People v. Valentine, 53 A.D.2d 832, 385 N.Y.S.2d 545 (1976); State v. Schroeder, 62 Or.App. 331, 661 P.2d 111, petition denied, 295 Or. 161, 668 P.2d 380 (1983); State v. Porraro......
-
People v. Brooks
...witness to be inadmissible on the ground that expert testimony with respect to such matters is improper (see People v. Valentine, 53 A.D.2d 832, 385 N.Y.S.2d 545; People v. Brown, 124 Misc.2d 938, 479 N.Y.S.2d 110; People v. Brown, 117 Misc.2d 587, 459 N.Y.S.2d 227). The Court of Appeals' m......
-
State v. Galloway
...142, 576 P.2d 275, 278-79 (1978); People v. Suleski, 58 A.D.2d 1023, 1024, 397 N.Y.S.2d 280, 281-82 (1977); People v. Valentine, 53 A.D.2d 832, 832-33, 385 N.Y.S.2d 545, 546 (1976). The predominant rationale for excluding such testimony which emerges from these cases is that the subject of ......
-
People v. Suleski
...which at the same time would not usurp the jury's function (United States v. Brown, 10th Cir., 540 F.2d 1048, 1054; People v. Valentine, 53 A.D.2d 832, 385 N.Y.S.2d 545). We do not agree with the District Attorney's argument, however, that evidence concerning the propriety of the line-ups, ......