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. Elmer RIVERA, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered September 30, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the lineup viewed by two prosecution witnesses one month after the shooting was unduly suggestive because the defendant and one filler were the only people in the lineup wearing the clothes described by the witnesses as having been worn by the shooter, i.e., a white T-shirt and jeans. The hearing court properly denied the suppression motion since the defendant's clothing was not so distinctive as to draw attention to him, and the appearance of the fillers was similar to the defendant in terms of skin tone and facial hair, and all of the participants were wearing white T-shirts (see, People v. Allen, 257 A.D.2d 397, 685 N.Y.S.2d 171; People v. Caba, 255 A.D.2d 232, 682 N.Y.S.2d 6). Moreover, three weeks prior to the lineup, the witnesses had selected a photograph of the defendant's face from an array of six photographs of similar-looking men, thus revealing that the witnesses concentrated on the shooter's face rather than his commonplace attire (see, People v. Santos, 250 A.D.2d 413, 673 N.Y.S.2d 94; People v. Tinnen, 238 A.D.2d 615, 657 N.Y.S.2d 73).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
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: October 18, 1999
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)