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. Joseph MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Perone, J., at hearing; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 21, 1997, convicting defendant of kidnapping in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 121/212 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied suppression of identification testimony. Assuming, without deciding, that the transportation of the complainant to an area very near an intersection where the investigating officers hoped defendant would be located, providing the complainant with an opportunity to make an identification, was a police-arranged procedure, we conclude that the ensuing spontaneous encounter with defendant was not a showup and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886, 626 N.Y.S.2d 59, 649 N.E.2d 1203). As soon as he saw defendant, the complainant began staring at him and he identified defendant without undue prompting from the police. We note that defendant received a full Wade hearing (see, People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 223, 623 N.Y.S.2d 813, 647 N.E.2d 1321),and we see no need for a remand for further findings (see, People v. Spruill, 232 A.D.2d 278, 649 N.Y.S.2d 11, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 946, 655 N.Y.S.2d 897, 678 N.E.2d 510).
The court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence recovered from defendant's apartment, since the record supports an emergency basis for entry of that dwelling that led to the plain view discovery of evidence whose incriminating nature was readily apparent. The police responded to a report of a burglary and saw that the apartment door had been pried upon and left ajar. Accordingly, the police properly entered to look for possible perpetrators or victims. Defendant's attack on the officer's motivation is speculative and we see no reason to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 14, 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)