Legal Opinion

People v. Biesty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 17, 1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. People v. LandorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  3. People v. HoehneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. In re Raymond A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. RagunauthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  2. People v. StarksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API