People v. Greene
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the second photographic array was not unduly suggestive. “Two separate showings of a suspect’s picture in successive photographic arrays are not per se impermissibly suggestive,” particularly where, as here, a different photograph of the defendant was used and his photograph was placed in different locations in the successive arrays (People v Dunlap, 9 AD3d 434, 435 [2004]). Moreover, the fillers in the second photo array were similar enough to the defendant in age and general appearance that there was little likelihood he would be singled out for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. SteinbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. BallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. SalnaveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. DunlapAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. ValentinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. DanielsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. JosephAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. StephensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- People v. AtkinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.