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, etc., Respondent, v. Quinton FAULK, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), both rendered March 13, 1995, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (four counts), bail jumping in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 94-00169, and burglary in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 94-00337, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences. The appeal under Indictment No. 94-00337 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
By failing to comply with the requirements of CPL 270.10, the defendant waived any objections he may have had to the composition of the jury panel (see also, People v. Branch, 244 A.D.2d 562, 665 N.Y.S.2d 674; People v. Battle, 221 A.D.2d 648, 634 N.Y.S.2d 192; People v. Sloan, 202 A.D.2d 525, 609 N.Y.S.2d 67; People v. Boudin, 87 A.D.2d 133, 451 N.Y.S.2d 153). Furthermore, the written motion that the defendant submitted on this issue was patently deficient because it failed to allege facts demonstrating that the claimed underrepresentation of black persons on the jury was the result of systematic exclusion (see, e.g., People v. Hobson, 227 A.D.2d 643, 643 N.Y.S.2d 610; People v. Magee, 208 A.D.2d 977, 617 N.Y.S.2d 227).
With regard to the defendant's challenge to the showup identifications under Indictment No. 94-00337, the facts adduced at the trial may not be considered in connection with our evaluation of the hearing court's determination (see, People v. Taylor, 206 A.D.2d 904, 616 N.Y.S.2d 116; People v. Ore, 157 A.D.2d 749, 551 N.Y.S.2d 531). The hearing court properly determined that the showup identifications were not unduly suggestive, given the close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime (see, e.g., People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520; People v. Rosa, 231 A.D.2d 534, 665 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Suarez, 201 A.D.2d 747, 608 N.Y.S.2d 321).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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 01, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)