Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 26, 2002

297 A.D.2d 391; 746 N.Y.2d 611; 746 N.Y.S.2d 611; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8141

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Staton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Staton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Redding (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Dunbar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hewitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Ortiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Dailey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Greene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Curtis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Ferguson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Avent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Anthony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Ragunauth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Callender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Maffei (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Walton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The defendant argues that the photo array identification of him by a witness should have been suppressed on the ground that it was suggestive. Specifically, the defendant claims that he was visibly younger than the other men in the photo array.

A photographic display is suggestive where some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer’s attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (see People v Cherry, 150 AD2d 475; People v Dubois, 140 AD2d 619, 622). An examination of the eight-picture array employed in this case demonstrates that it was not suggestive. The defendant’s appearance and pose did not differ greatly from those of the men in the other photographs. The men, including the defendant, were close in age, had similar hairstyles, skin tones, and facial characteristics (see People v Robert, 184 AD2d 597; People v Floyd, 173 AD2d 211).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

*392The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.