You are here: / / POLICE OFFICER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANTS AS THE PERSONS...
,

POLICE OFFICER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANTS AS THE PERSONS DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a police officer was properly allowed to identify defendants as persons depicted in videotapes:

The circumstances … warranted testimony by the officer identifying defendants as persons depicted in videotapes … . Notwithstanding the fact that defendants had not changed their appearance subsequent to having been videotaped, the testimony was permissible, because “[the] testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the [men] in the [were] indeed the defendant[s]'”… . Furthermore, the circumstances suggested that the jury would be less able than the officer to determine whether the defendants were seen in the videotapes, given the poor quality of the surveillance tapes, which showed groups of young men, mostly from a distance, thus rendering his testimony appropriate … . The trial court instructed the jurors that the officer’s testimony concerning the identities of those seen on video was his opinion and that the ultimate identification determination belonged exclusively to the jury. Furthermore, none of the officer’s testimony violated the hearsay rule or defendants’ right of confrontation. People v Pinkston, 2019 NY Slip Op 01171, First Dept 2-19-19

 

You might also like
“Crime-Fraud” Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Re: Studies Funded by Defendant Casting Doubt on Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer
A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).
THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BY CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES TRUSTS IS CONTROLLED BY NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE AND MUST BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK LAW, SUIT WAS UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay About Cause of Fall Included in Hospital Report Should Not Have Been Presented to the Jury
LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOOTAGE FROM A POLICE OFFICER’S BODY-WORN CAMERA IS NOT A PERSONNEL RECORD... SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED...