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. Lawrence LINTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered June 29, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting negative identification evidence (see People v. Wilder, 93 N.Y.2d 352, 690 N.Y.S.2d 483, 712 N.E.2d 652 [1999] ), consisting of the victim's inability to identify anyone from a large group of photographs. Although the photos were unavailable, there was sufficient trial testimony to establish the probative value of the victim's failure to make an identification. In any event, any error in this regard was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the prosecutor made an improper summation argument suggesting that defendant's prior record showed criminal propensity, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the comment did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, particularly since, shortly after the remarks at issue, the court gave a curative instruction that defendant's record was a matter for the jury's consideration in evaluating defendant's credibility as a witness, followed by a more specific instruction, in its final charge, that the prior record was not evidence of predisposition. Accordingly, we also reject defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to this issue.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
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: October 07, 2008
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)