PEOPLE v. REED, 137 A.D.3d 438 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160303341
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2016
Summary: The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 , 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Defendant, who was arrested in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, matched, in critical respects, the detailed description provided by the victims. The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police conducted a prompt showup in the vicinity of
Summary: The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 , 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Defendant, who was arrested in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, matched, in critical respects, the detailed description provided by the victims. The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police conducted a prompt showup in the vicinity of t..
More
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Defendant, who was arrested in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, matched, in critical respects, the detailed description provided by the victims.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police conducted a prompt showup in the vicinity of the robbery in a manner that was not unduly suggestive, given the fast-paced chain of events (see People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545 [1991]). Although defendant was guarded by three police officers, this was an appropriate security measure, and "the overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup" (People v Brujan, 104 A.D.3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1014 [2013]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.
Source: Leagle
