Legal Opinion
People v. Samuel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 7, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The record supports the hearing court’s finding that the photo array and lineup were not unduly suggestive. As to each procedure, defendant and the other participants were reasonably similar in appearance, and there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
The court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. There was no violation of Payton v New York (445 US 573 [1980]).…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Stansbury v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. YuklNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. AndrangoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- People v. AndrangoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. ValeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019