People v. Whisby
| Decision Date | 27 November 1979 |
| Parties | , 400 N.E.2d 286 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence WHISBY and Arthur Price, Jr., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendants' contention that they have been denied their right to a speedy trial (U.S.Const., 6th, 14th Amdts.; CPL 30.20; Civil Rights Law, § 12) may not be considered by this court where defendants failed to raise the issue at trial. (People v. Primmer, 46 N.Y.2d 1048, 416 N.Y.S.2d 548, 389 N.E.2d 1070; People v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318.)
We also reject the contention of each of the defendants that the in-court identification by the victim ought to have been suppressed. With respect to defendant Price, it need only be stated that there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's factual finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that the in-court identification was based upon an independent source of recollection. In such a situation, this court may not disturb this finding. (People v. Burrows, 46 N.Y.2d 957, 415 N.Y.S.2d 410, 388 N.E.2d 733; People v. Peterson, 40 N.Y.2d 1014, 391 N.Y.S.2d 530, 359 N.E.2d 1325.) With respect to defendant Whisby, the record supports the affirmed finding of fact that he was identified by the complaining witness on a public street in White Plains and that "there were no police identification procedures necessary and none, in fact, took place." (See People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 303 N.Y.S.2d 353, 359, 250 N.E.2d 454, 458, cert. den. 396 U.S. 1020, 90 S.Ct. 592, 24 L.Ed.2d 513.)
We have examined defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinney v. Conway
...a police-arranged identification procedure, and thus a Wade hearing would not have been warranted. See People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834, 835–36, 424 N.Y.S.2d 344, 400 N.E.2d 286 (N.Y.1979) (“[The defendant] was identified by the complaining witness on a public street in White Plains and ... ......
-
People v. Harrell
...there is no police action of any kind in making the identification, there is no police arrangement. E.g., People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834, 424 N.Y.S.2d 344, 400 N.E.2d 286 (1979); People v. Darnell, 146 A.D.2d 583, 536 N.Y.S.2d 505 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 73 N.Y.2d 976, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 5......
-
People v. Jones
...grounds was thwarted in People v. Lieberman, 47 N.Y.2d 931, 419 N.Y.S.2d 946, 393 N.E.2d 1019, supra ; cf. People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834, 424 N.Y.S.2d 344, 400 N.E.2d 286, while in People v. Booker, 49 N.Y.2d 989, 990, 429 N.Y.S.2d 168, 406 N.E.2d 1062, supra, a ground for suppression was......
-
People v. Malloy
...inquiry necessarily is a factual one (see People v. Dickerson, 50 N.Y.2d 937, 431 N.Y.S.2d 453, 409 N.E.2d 927; People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834, 424 N.Y.S.2d 344, 400 N.E.2d 286), involving an evaluation of the totality of circumstances (see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243,......