PEOPLE v. MENDOZA (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Edwin MENDOZA, appellant.

Decided: December 05, 2006

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, STEVEN W. FISHER, and MARK C. DILLON, JJ.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered November 30, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officer's testimony that he conducted a “witness identification” and arrested the defendant after asking the complainant if “that was him” did not constitute impermissible bolstering of the complainant's identification testimony because it was offered for the relevant purpose of establishing the reasons behind the officer's actions and explaining the events which precipitated the defendant's arrest (see People v. Smalls, 293 A.D.2d 500, 501, 739 N.Y.S.2d 630; People v. Morgan, 193 A.D.2d 467, 597 N.Y.S.2d 364).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law