Legal Opinion
People v. Hendrick
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 14, 1993PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive. According appropriate weight to the findings made by the suppression court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), we conclude that the showup was conducted in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Love, 57 *1101NY2d 1023, 1024; People v Minter, 186 AD2d 1035, lv denied 81 NY2d 764).
Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene within 20 minutes of the occurrence. He was returned to the area and positively identified as…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. DuuvonNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- People v. LoveNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. MinterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. FontanezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- People v. SandersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- People v. McGeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. BechtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- People v. LibbettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.