In re Tyquan W.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1256The Family Court improperly granted that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to suppress the identification testimony of Cheynnia W The viewing of a photo array by two witnesses in the same room, by itself, does not taint either witness’s identification testimony (see People v Seymour, 77 AD3d 976 [2010]). However, evidence of communication between the two witnesses may support the presence of such taint (id.). Here, the two witnesses, who are sisters, were interviewed simultaneously and then shown photo books while still in the same room. Cheynnia W. first and independently…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. SeymourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. ReynosoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3Cited by1 opinion
- Morales v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014