From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gildersleeve

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 12, 1988
143 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

September 12, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's conviction arises out of a robbery of a gas station in Queens on October 19, 1981. At two showups that evening, the complainant identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. The defendant challenges the validity of both showups. The first showup was proper inasmuch as the defendant was arrested in the vicinity of the crime and the showup was conducted shortly after the crime to confirm or dispel the suspicion that the defendant was one of the perpetrators (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366). However, we conclude that the second showup which was conducted at a police precinct was unduly suggestive. Besides the fact that the complainant had already identified the defendant in a showup that evening, there is no evidence of exigent circumstances which would justify a showup at a police station (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). Nevertheless, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant had an independent basis for his in-court identification (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v Jones, 125 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 829). Moreover, we note that there was no testimony at the trial as to the improper second showup.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

Lastly, although the court's initial charge failed to distinguish robbery in the second degree from robbery in the first degree, upon the jury's request the court adequately explained the difference between the two crimes and thus cured its initial defective instructions (see, People v Joseph AA., 92 A.D.2d 649; People v Santoro, 68 A.D.2d 939). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gildersleeve

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 12, 1988
143 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Gildersleeve

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN GILDERSLEEVE…

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

Date published: Sep 12, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

Looking through a one-way mirror, she separately immediately identified the suspects. The hearing court erred…

People v. Lawrence

Rather, they resulted from the witnesses' own observations and information regarding the incident (see,…