Legal Opinion
People v. Peterkin
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 1, 1990PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338). Defendant argues, however, that he has a right to call the complainant where there has been a showup, an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. LoveNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. RileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
3Cited by26 opinions
- People v. GriffinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. Zhang WanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. PriesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. BrockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.