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. Evans LeCORPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel F. FitzGerald, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The lineup was not rendered unduly suggestive when, at the victim's request, the police directed all the participants to come forward and show their teeth, thereby revealing defendant's particular dental deformity. The record establishes that the victim had already identified defendant at the lineup without viewing any of the participants' teeth, and only wanted to confirm her initial identification (see People v. Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 610, 637 N.Y.S.2d 174 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1025, 651 N.Y.S.2d 24, 673 N.E.2d 1251 [1996] ). Moreover, she had previously made a photographic identification of defendant in which the participants' teeth were not displayed. We also find that there was nothing suggestive about having the lineup participants stand up, since their height differences were insignificant.
The court properly denied defendant's request to submit criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant had any noncriminal reason for his presence in the victim's apartment (see People v. Mongen, 157 A.D.2d 82, 555 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 1015, 565 N.Y.S.2d 764, 566 N.E.2d 1169 [1990] ).
Defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved and unavailing (People v. Quinones, 18 A.D.3d 330, 795 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2005] ).
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 16, 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)