People v. Starks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic array was not unduly suggestive. There is no requirement that the photograph of a defendant shown as part of a photo array be surrounded by photographs of individuals nearly identical in appearance (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert *976denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Brown, 89 AD3d 1032, 1032 [2011]). Here, the alleged variations in appearance between the photographs of other persons depicted in the photo array and that of the defendant were not so substantial as to render the photo array impermissibly suggestive (see…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- People v. SuitteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. McRayNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. SpannNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. BurroughsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. XochimitlAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- People v. StatonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. GoodrellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. AinsleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.