New York Court of Appeals, 1977

People v. Ramos

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 2, 1977

42 N.Y.2d 834; 366 N.E.2d 76; 397 N.Y.S.2d 375; 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2142

Cases that cite this one

39 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Smith (New York County Courts 1980)
People v. Adams (N.Y. 1981)
The People v. Thomas P. Perdue (N.Y. 2023)
People v. Gouveia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Matter of Aliya M. (Queens Family Court 2007)
People v. Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Twitty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Rosales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Muhammad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Suarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Miles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Corbett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Edmunds (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Leary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Frawley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Wong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Sanders (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. MacKay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Marshall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

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

Memorandum. In light of the invulnerable finding that the witness Carmen Jiminez had ample opportunity to observe the defendant at the time of the burglary, we hold that her in-court identification of the defendant had an independent source and was not tainted by any suggestive identification at the station house (see People v Cobenais, 39 NY2d 968; People *835v Carter, 30 NY2d 279, 283; cf. Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-201).

We also reject the defendant’s claim, made at the Appellate Division and in this court, that the in-court identification by the witness Norma Jiminez was tainted by a suggestive confrontation while testifying at the identification suppression hearing. The hearing Judge, who, of course, was afforded the opportunity to observe her while she testified, found that her identification was the product of her own independent recollection and was not tainted by any improper confrontation. This finding, too, was affirmed by the Appellate Division. It is of interest to also note that when asked at the hearing if she saw the man who perpetrated the crime in the courtroom, and when she then identified the defendant, no question was then raised as to the propriety of this procedure.

Finally, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that the Trial Judge improperly marshaled the evidence (compare People v Bell, 38 NY2d 116).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Cooke dissents and votes to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice Charles Margett at the Appellate Division (52 AD2d 640-645).

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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