You are here: / / PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT...

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY; WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY.

The Third Department determined the evidence presented at the Rodriguez hearing demonstrated the confidential informant's (CI's) identification of the defendant was confirmatory (i.e., based upon prior acquaintance with the defendant) and, therefore, a Wade hearing to determine the validity of the identification was not necessary. The court also noted that a two-hour discrepancy between when the drug sale took place as alleged in the indictment, and the testimony about the time of the sale at trial, did not deprive the defendant of the ability to defend against the allegations. With respect to the sufficiency of the identification of the defendant, the court wrote:

 

… “[A] Wade hearing is not required when the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is little or no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification” … . Where, as here, the People assert that the pretrial identification was merely confirmatory, the People bear the burden of “prov[ing] the witness's sufficient familiarity with the defendant at a Rodriguez hearing” … . “Although the People are not obligated to call the identifying witness at [the] Rodriguez hearing” … , they nonetheless must come forward with “sufficient details of the extent and degree of the protagonists' prior relationship” with one another … . Relevant factors to be considered in this regard include “the number of times the witness saw the defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of those encounters, time periods and setting of the viewings, time between the last viewing and the crime, and whether the two individuals had any conversations” … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 01521, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/CRIMINAL LAW (TWO-HOUR DISCREPANCY RE: TIME OF DRUG SALE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF ABILITY TO DEFEND)/IDENTIFICATION (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/RODRIGUEZ HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/WADE HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)

/by
You might also like
Plaintiff Was Unable to Demonstrate Landlord Had Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint​
Statute of Limitations Defense in Article 78 Proceeding Waived Because Not Raised in Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss
IF PETIONER HAD PURCHASED CONCRETE AS A PART OF A SERVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE PURCHASE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX; BUT PETITIONER PURCHASED THE CONTRACT IN “RAW” FORM AND PETITIONER’S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONTRACTORS USED IT TO BUILD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; THE PURCHASE OF THE CONCRETE WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (THIRD DEPT).
DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT ARGUED THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE UNFAIRLY APPORTIONED THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THEM SUCH THAT THE NON-NEGLIGENT, VICARIOUSLY LIABLE PARTY PAID $2 MILLION, AND THE NEGLIGENT PARTY PAID $200,000; AFTER INDEMNIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE NEGLIGENT PARTY; THE ATTEMPT WAS REJECTED UNDER BOTH CONTRACTUAL AND COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION THEORIES (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Hearing Conducted in Absence of Inmate Okay Due to Inmate’s Assaultive and Menacing Conduct

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DECEDENT REVOKED A LOST WILL. HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S...