People v. Madison
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Farrow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Cleveland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Perdue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Leigh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Sanabria v. Martuscello (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- People v. Suarez (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2016)
- JACKSON, JR., ANTHONY C., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Hawkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Doyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Rosado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Horsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. McLaurin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Wade (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Castrechino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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
Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered April 3, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of various crimes related to a home invasion robbery. As we previously determined in the appeals of defendant’s two codefendants, the stop of the vehicle occupied by defendant and his two codefendants was proper (People v Russ, 300 AD2d 1031, 1032 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 632 [2003]; People v Thompson, 300 AD2d 1032, 1033 [2002], lv
We further conclude that County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress his statement to the police. In denying defendant’s motion, the court credited the testimony of the police officers, and such credibility determinations will not be disturbed unless they are “ ‘clearly erroneous’ ” (People v Evans, 278 AD2d 937, 937 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 783 [2001]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court did not err in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who unequivocally stated that his daughter’s friendship with one of the alleged victims would not affect the prospective juror’s ability to keep an open mind {see CPL 270.20 [1] [b], [c]; People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Horace, 277 AD2d 957 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 784 [2001]).
Also contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the court properly allowed one of the alleged victims to identify defendant for the first time at trial. “ ‘In cases where there has been no pretrial identification procedure and the defendant is identified in court for the first time, the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial because [defendant] is able to explore weaknesses and suggestiveness of the identification in front of the jury’ ” (People v Brazeau, 304 AD2d 254, 257 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003], quoting People v Medina, 208 AD2d 771, 772 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1035 [1995]). In addition, we conclude that the court properly admitted the physical items of evidence introduced by the People at trial. The testimony of the People’s witnesses provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of those items, and any deficiencies in the chain of custody of those items went to the weight to be accorded those items, not their admissibility {see People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343-344 [1977]).
Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case was not specifically directed at the errors alleged on appeal, and defendant thus has failed to preserve for our review his present contention concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence {see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.