People v. Sanders
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Lago (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
- People v. Webb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Hightower (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Hightower (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Parker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Applewhite (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. Harrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Douglas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Steward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Moss (N.Y. 1992)
- People v. Moss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Ptah (New York Supreme Court 1990)
- People v. Levy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Reid (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Myrick (N.Y. 1985)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
By allowing the witness to testify at trial as to his observations at the scene of the crime, including his description of the person he saw in the hallway with a gun, the trial court did not violate the pretrial ruling prohibiting the witness from making an in-court identification. As found by the Appellate Division, the witness gave his description to the police prior to the suggestive identification procedures at the station house, and thus the description itself was not tainted by those procedures.
We also agree with the finding that defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s opening remarks.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur; Judge Titone taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.