Legal Opinion

People v. Nettles

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

Decided October 6, 1989No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The hearing court’s finding that the showup was not impermissibly suggestive is fully supported by the record (see, People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970). Although one-on-one identification procedures are never desirable and should be avoided when feasible, it is well established that procedures which are less than ideal may be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification (People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249; People v Johnson, 102 AD2d 616, 627, lv denied 63 NY2d 776; People v Cole, 100 AD2d 442, 445-446). This is…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. AdamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. People v. LoveNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. People v. BrnjaNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. People v. RileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. People v. LoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1969

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. WorsechAppellate 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