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. Dwight YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J., at suppression hearing; Joseph Cerbone, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 7, 1996, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 121/212 to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Although the suppression court failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, in violation of CPL 710.60, there is an adequate record upon which this Court may make its own findings and conclusions (see, People v. Jones, 247 A.D.2d 272, 667 N.Y.S.2d 905, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 927, 680 N.Y.S.2d 468, 703 N.E.2d 280). Although the photo array containing defendant's photograph was lost, the copy of the array presented at the hearing, in addition to the testimony concerning the array, was sufficient to establish that it was not suggestive, and we find no evidence of suggestive police conduct. Defendant's claim that his lineup was tainted by a witness's premature viewing of the lineup fillers is contradicted by the record, which clearly establishes that no such event occurred with respect to this lineup.
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to reopen the Wade hearing on the basis of trial testimony claimed by defendant to indicate that there may have been a single-photo identification. The trial court correctly determined that the testimony in question was based on the witness's misunderstanding of a question, and that the witness's mistake was immediately rectified on further examination (see, CPL 710.40[4]; People v. Ferguson, 237 A.D.2d 187, 655 N.Y.S.2d 15, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 857, 661 N.Y.S.2d 184, 683 N.E.2d 1058).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.
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: May 04, 1999
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)