People v. Chisolm
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to present expert testimony on eyewitness identification. This case involves two closely related incidents; only the incident that led to the grand larceny conviction involved an identification issue. There was significant corrobo*224rating evidence (see e.g. People v Allen, 53 AD3d 582, 584 [2008]) of defendant’s guilt of the larceny, namely, both a surveillance videotape and defendant’s admission that placed him in very close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, and the fact that defendant’s clothing and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. BeneventoNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Crane v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- People v. LaneNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. LaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. ZohriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. McCrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. SantiagoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- In re Tyshawn M.New York City Family Court · 2011
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.