Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
The hotel manager was properly permitted to testify as to the complainant's description of the robber and to the fact that defendant was the only resident of this controlled-access residential hotel who could have met that description. The manager had personal knowledge of the appearance of all the residents, and the complainant's description completed the narrative and provided context (see, People v. Rivera, 234 A.D.2d 148, 652 N.Y.S.2d 2, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 946, 655 N.Y.S.2d 897, 678 N.E.2d 510; People v. Williams, 216 A.D.2d 211, 629 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 926, 641 N.Y.S.2d 608, 664 N.E.2d 519).
Defendant could not have been prejudiced by the court's refusal to sign a subpoena for the hotel's book of residents' photographs. Defendant could have issued his own subpoena, and, in any event, the record sufficiently establishes that the book of photographs would have had little or no probative value.
The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from calling the complainant and two other witnesses at the Wade hearing, and in denying defendant's motion to reopen the hearing. There was no evidence of suggestiveness in any aspect of the complainant's identification of defendant, and in each instance the value of the additional information sought to be introduced by defendant was speculative and could not have affected the outcome of the hearing (see, People v. Taylor, 80 N.Y.2d 1, 586 N.Y.S.2d 545, 598 N.E.2d 693; People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 21, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)