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. Kevin Reid, appellant.
Argued-April 23, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered November 28, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, and the adherence to the denial, after two hearings (Eng, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the testimony presented at the two hearings established that his identification by a witness was merely confirmatory, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress that witness's identification testimony was thus properly denied (see People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly redacted his medical records (see People v. Attawwab, 304 A.D.2d 672; People v. Anjorie, 300 A.D.2d 500; People v. Hopson, 182 A.D.2d 441).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain allegedly improper comments made during the prosecutor's summation is not preserved for appellate review because he failed to make a timely and specific objection in the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 793). In any event, the challenged remarks were responsive to defense counsel's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or constituted harmless error (see generally People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 793; People v. Gonzalez, 45 AD3d 696, 696-697; People v. Pierre, 30 AD3d 622).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FISHER, J.P., BALKIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2007-11771 (Ind.No. 814 /05)
Decided: May 18, 2010
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)