AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JAMEL WALKER, appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification of him. Although the complainant's identification of the defendant was the result of a police-arranged procedure (see, People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 223), the procedure was not unduly suggestive and the complainant's identification of the defendant was spontaneous (see, People v. Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886, 888; People v. Martinez, 267 A.D.2d 101; People v. Burgos, 246 A.D.2d 394; People v. Hines, 215 A.D.2d 691.

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. WALKER
(Jul 2, 2001)