People v. Lopez
Opinion of the Court
Judgment, Supreme
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to introduce expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification (see People v Lee, 96 NY2d 157 [2001]). The record does not support defendant’s assertion that the court failed to exercise its discretion. We note that even without expert testimony, defendant was able to attack thoroughly the People’s identification testimony through cross-examination and summation arguments.
Although an expanded identification charge would have been the better practice, we find no basis for reversal in this regard because the court sufficiently instructed the jury on the subject of identification (see People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873 [1995]; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279 [1983]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.