People v. Biesty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
We reject the defendant’s contention that the photographic array was unduly suggestive. "There is no requirement that all the participants in a * * * photo array be identical in appearance” (Matter of Raymond A., 178 AD2d 288, 289; see also, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, cert denied 498 US 833; People v Hoehne, 203 AD2d 480). In any event, the photographic array from which the witnesses selected the defendant consisted of males who were similar in appearance and age to the defen*609dant (see, People v Landor, 92 AD2d 625). The record further establishes that none of the other procedures used in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. LandorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- People v. HoehneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- In re Raymond A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. RagunauthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. StarksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012