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. Maximo GERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered September 13, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life and a concurrent term of 8 1/3 to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Issues of credibility and identification were properly presented to the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determinations. On the contrary, we find the evidence to be overwhelming, particularly in view of defendant's detailed confession to a childhood friend, where the record provides no other explanation of how the friend could have learned the precise details of the crime.
Following a Wade hearing that resulted in the suppression of a victim's line-up identification, an independent source hearing was held and the court correctly determined that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification was based on the victim's independent observation of defendant. During the commission of the crimes, the victim had unobstructed views of the defendant's face and his description was sufficiently specific as to establish independent source (see, People v. Williams, 222 A.D.2d 149, 646 N.Y.S.2d 665, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1072, 651 N.Y.S.2d 416, 674 N.E.2d 346).
We conclude that any error in the court's rejection of defendant's request for a missing witness charge was harmless (see, People v. Fields, 76 N.Y.2d 761, 559 N.Y.S.2d 951, 559 N.E.2d 645). Defendant was permitted to comment in summation on the witness's absence and, as previously noted, the evidence was overwhelming.
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: June 06, 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)