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. Harold SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leona Leo, J., at suppression hearing and jury trial; Juanita Bing Newton, J., at sentence), rendered December 22, 1998, as amended March 2, 1999, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's arrest for an uncharged trespass, since this testimony was necessary to complete the narrative of the case, to explain how defendant came to be arrested in possession of the burglary complainant's property, and to dispel speculation by the jury (see, People v. Fay, 85 A.D.2d 512, 444 N.Y.S.2d 629, appeal withdrawn 56 N.Y.2d 593; see also, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153). The court's thorough limiting instructions prevented any prejudice.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The lineup was not unduly suggestive because there was a sufficient resemblance between defendant and the other lineup participants so that defendant did not stand out (see, 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).
There was no error under People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841, because the officer's testimony describing the lineup procedure, without stating that the witness actually identified defendant, does not constitute bolstering (People v. James, 262 A.D.2d 139, 692 N.Y.S.2d 50, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1020, 697 N.Y.S.2d 579, 719 N.E.2d 940; People v. Carolina, 211 A.D.2d 454, 621 N.Y.S.2d 49, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 860, 624 N.Y.S.2d 379, 648 N.E.2d 799).
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: April 13, 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)