People v. Wright
| Decision Date | 26 August 2002 |
| Citation | 297 A.D.2d 391,746 N.Y.S.2d 611 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>OMAR WRIGHT, Appellant. |
Ordered that the judgment and amended sentence are affirmed.
The defendant argues that the photo array identification of him by a witness should have been suppressed on the ground that it was suggestive. Specifically, the defendant claims that he was visibly younger than the other men in the photo array.
A photographic display is suggestive where some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (see People v Cherry, 150 AD2d 475; People v Dubois, 140 AD2d 619, 622). An examination of the eight-picture array employed in this case demonstrates that it was not suggestive. The defendant's appearance and pose did not differ greatly from those of the men in the other photographs. The men, including the defendant, were close in age, had similar hairstyles, skin tones, and facial characteristics (see People v Robert, 184 AD2d 597; People v Floyd, 173 AD2d 211).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Staton
... ... The six-photograph array depicted men who appeared to be relatively close in age. Additionally, the participants were sufficiently similar to the defendant in skin tone, hairstyle, facial hair, pose, and attire (see People v. Ferguson, 55 A.D.3d 926, 927, 866 N.Y.S.2d 346 ; People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391, 391, 746 N.Y.S.2d 611 ; People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597, 598, 585 N.Y.S.2d 445 ). Although it appears that the defendant is the only participant in the array with salt and pepper hair, that difference, when considered together with the other similarities in the photographs, did ... ...
-
People v. Ortiz
... ... A photographic display is suggestive when some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection ( People v. Miller, 33 A.D.3d 728, 728729, 821 N.Y.S.2d 904; see People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391, 746 N.Y.S.2d 611; People v. Williams, 289 A.D.2d 270, 270271, 734 N.Y.S.2d 463; People v. Cherry, 150 A.D.2d 475, 475476, 541 N.Y.S.2d 78). Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no indication that his photograph differed significantly from the photographs of the fillers ... ...
-
People v. Redding, 2012-02646, 2014-04520, Ind. No. 11-00073.
... ... A photographic array is suggestive where some characteristic of an individual's picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (People v. Curtis, 71 A.D.3d 1044, 1044, 900 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; see People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391, 391, 746 N.Y.S.2d 611 ). Here, the various persons depicted in the photo packets used in the pretrial identification procedures were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant that there was little likelihood the defendant would be singled out for identification based on ... ...
-
People v. Redding
... ... “A photographic array is suggestive where some characteristic of an individual's picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection” (People v. Curtis, 71 A.D.3d 1044, 1044, 900 N.Y.S.2d 68; see People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391, 391, 746 N.Y.S.2d 611). Here, the various persons depicted in the photo packets used in the pretrial identification procedures were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant that there was little likelihood the defendant would be singled out for identification based on ... ...