AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. LAMAR SUBER, APPELLANT.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant's wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v. Brown, 123 A.D.2d 875) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant's wife. "Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v. Wade ( 388 U.S. 218; see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552)" (People v. Brown, supra, at 876). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. SUBER
(Apr 2, 2001)