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. Marquil L. ADAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery (see People v. Brown, 92 A.D.3d 1216–1217, 937 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003 [2012] ). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence on the issue of identification (see People v. Young, 74 A.D.3d 1471, 1472, 902 N.Y.S.2d 222, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 811, 908 N.Y.S.2d 171, 934 N.E.2d 905; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
Defendant also contends that the pretrial identification by the robbery victim from a photo array should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest (see generally People v. Hill, 53 A.D.3d 1151, 1151, 860 N.Y.S.2d 780; People v. Robinson, 282 A.D.2d 75, 79–82, 728 N.Y.S.2d 421). In its ruling on defendant's suppression motion, Supreme Court concluded that the photo array procedure was not unduly suggestive, but failed to address the legality of defendant's detention or arrest. “CPL 470.15(1) precludes [this Court] from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant's favor or was not decided by the trial court” (People v. Ingram, 18 N.Y.3d 948, 949, 944 N.Y.S.2d 470, 967 N.E.2d 695; see People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470, 474, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671, 705 N.E.2d 663, rearg. denied 93 N.Y.2d 849, 688 N.Y.S.2d 495, 710 N.E.2d 1094). Thus, we may not resolve defendant's contention regarding a theory not addressed by the court. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the identification testimony should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention or arrest (see generally People v. Chattley, 89 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 932 N.Y.S.2d 750).
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
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: June 15, 2012
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)