People v. Ramirez

Weinstein, J.,

dissents and votes to affirm the judgment appealed from, with the following memorandum: Contrary to the position taken by my colleagues, I am of the view that while a detailed identification charge may have been desirable, the court’s charge in the instant case, viewed in its entirety, sufficiently complied with the mandates of People v Whalen (59 NY2d 273). In People v Whalen (supra) the Court of Appeals held that it was not error for the court to refuse a *737defendant’s request for an expansive charge concerning identification testimony which would emphasize that such evidence is…