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. VICTOR E. SANTIAGO, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ) and possession of burglar's tools (§ 140.35), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the victim's showup identification of him. Defendant contended following the suppression hearing that the showup procedure was “inherently suggestive” because the victim was “a young man who was shown no one else moments after an event.” Thus, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contentions that the showup procedure was unreasonable under the circumstances, that it was unduly suggestive because the 13–year–old identifying victim observed defendant exiting a police car in handcuffs, and defendant was in the presence of a police officer during the showup procedure (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Morgan, 302 A.D.2d 983, 984, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 631). In any event, we conclude that defendant's present contentions lack merit. The showup procedure was reasonable under the circumstances because it was conducted in “geographic and temporal proximity to the crime” (People v. Brisco, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 597; see People v. Kirkland, 49 AD3d 1260, 1260–1261, lv denied 10 NY3d 958, 961, cert denied _ U.S. _, 129 S Ct 1331; People v. Davis, 48 AD3d 1120, 1122, lv denied 10 NY3d 957). Further, the showup procedure was not rendered unduly suggestive by the victim's observation of defendant exiting a police car in handcuffs or by the fact that defendant was in the presence of a police officer during the procedure (see Davis, 48 AD3d at 1122; see also People v. Grant, 77 AD3d 558). Finally, it cannot be said that the identifying victim's young age rendered the showup procedure unduly suggestive (see generally People v. Smith, 236 A.D.2d 639, 640, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 863).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 08–01012
Decided: April 01, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)