From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-07154

Argued January 17, 2003.

February 13, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered July 14, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing (Flaherty, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. and Cecilia Loving, New York, N.Y. (Stacey M. Toussaint of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Doreen S. Martin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and determine the issues raised in that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Queens County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony without holding a hearing thereon, upon its determination that there was no police-arranged identification procedure. The complainant and a witness identified the defendant after a canvass of the area where the crime occurred, while in a patrol car. Such a canvass constitutes an "identification procedure undertaken at the `deliberate direction of the State'" (People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 223, quoting People v. Newball, 76 N.Y.2d 587, 591). Therefore, a Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218) must be held to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the identification (see People v. Dixon, supra; People v. Alers, 234 A.D.2d 310), and the appeal shall be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Supreme Court, Queens County.

FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Brinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER BRINSON, a/k/a CHRISTOPHE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 13, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
753 N.Y.S.2d 740

Citing Cases

Brinson v. Annetts

In a decision dated February 10, 2003, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that, under People v.…