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. Troy RADCLIFFE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered July 10, 2003, as amended September 25, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion in all respects. When the victim identified defendant's photo from an array, this provided the police with probable cause to arrest defendant (see People v. Palacio, 121 A.D.2d 282, 283, 503 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1986], lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 916, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 501 N.E.2d 610 [1986] ). We reject defendant's argument that this identification was insufficiently reliable to establish probable cause. Although at the time of the identification the victim was hospitalized and under the influence of medication, the detective testified that the victim was lucid and that he unequivocally identified defendant's photo (cf. People v. Gloster, 175 A.D.2d 258, 262, 572 N.Y.S.2d 370 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011, 575 N.Y.S.2d 819, 581 N.E.2d 1065 [1991] ). The victim's subsequent lineup identification was not unduly suggestive. The record establishes that any physical disparities between defendant and the other lineup participants were minimal and did not draw undue attention to defendant (see People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 [1990], cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70 [1990] ). The lineup identification was not rendered infirm because the victim had seen a composite sketch that bore a resemblance to defendant.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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 [1987] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning identification and credibility.
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: November 22, 2005
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)