Opinion
10-22-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David WALKER, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Amanda Rolat of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Amanda Rolat of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), rendered August 20, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The record supports the court's determination that, notwithstanding suppressed identification procedures, the victim had an independent source for her identification of defendant (see Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199–200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 [1972] ; People v. Williams, 222 A.D.2d 149, 153, 646 N.Y.S.2d 665 [1st Dept.1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1072, 651 N.Y.S.2d 416, 674 N.E.2d 346 [1996] ). Although the victim's time to observe defendant before, during and after the robbery was very limited, her observations were made under good lighting conditions, with a clear view of defendant's face, except for the small area covered by a hat (see e.g. People v. Bouchereau, 255 A.D.2d 389, 681 N.Y.S.2d 50 [2d Dept.1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 966, 695 N.Y.S.2d 52, 716 N.E.2d 1097 [1999] ; Matter of Jason V., 171 A.D.2d 447, 447, 567 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.1991] ). She also gave a detailed and accurate description of defendant.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. In addition to the victim's identification testimony, there was circumstantial evidence that not only undermined defendant's alibi defense, but tended to place him in the vicinity of the robbery around the time it was committed.
SWEENY, J.P., SAXE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ., concur.