From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1993
194 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 10, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.).


The second, police-arranged identification of defendant by the complainant followed immediately upon the first, privately and non-police-arranged identification (see, People v. Sanford, 184 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 934). Although the court offered a Wade hearing when the facts became known, defense counsel declined. The court's Sandoval ruling permitting the People to bring out 5 of defendant's previous 6 robbery convictions, while prohibiting mention of the word "robbery" and the fact that all were committed at knifepoint, was not an abuse of discretion. The prior crimes were not remote, defendant having spent most of his adult life in prison (see, People v. Williams, 186 A.D.2d 469, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 849), and no undue prejudice was otherwise caused defendant by the similarity of the prior crimes to those for which he was being tried (see, People v. Aiken, 162 A.D.2d 106, 107, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 851).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1993
194 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER BROWN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 783

Citing Cases

People v. Stewart

Moreover, this testimony was not prejudicial, since it did not incriminate defendant. The court's Sandoval…