Legal Opinion

People v. Quick

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

Decided February 20, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the lineup procedure employed was proper and not "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [the defendant] was denied due process of law” (Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 302). All of the other participants in the lineup were approximately the same age, weight and build as the defendant and had similar skin tones and hairstyles (see, People v Mattocks, 133 AD2d 89; People v Cunningham, 110 AD2d 708, 709). The defendant’s argument that the lineup was rendered unnecessarily suggestive because of his height is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. People v. . GaimariNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. People v. GarafoloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  5. People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1982

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. AhmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  2. People v. SantiagoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  3. People v. QuickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API