Legal Opinion

People v. Worsech

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

Decided October 7, 1992PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant’s showup identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime, the hearing court properly concluded that defendant’s identification was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Nettles, 154 AD2d 925; People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970, lv denied 74 NY2d 742). Defendant’s remaining contention that complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was waived by defendant’s failure to make that suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; People v…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. People v. MartinezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. People v. O'NeilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  4. People v. NettlesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API