AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CURTIS OWENS, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup identification of the defendant support the hearing court's finding of no undue suggestiveness (see, People v Johnson, 122 A.D.2d 812, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 915; People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 916; People v Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 942). In any event, the record clearly shows that there was an independent source for the eyewitness's identification of the defendant (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98).

The trial court correctly refused to permit the defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence regarding a collateral matter for the sole purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness Bobbie Knight (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Strawder, 106 A.D.2d 672).

After viewing the record, we have determined that the assistance of counsel provided to the defendant was "meaningful" (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those made in his pro se supplemental brief, and have determined that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. OWENS
(Jun 8, 1987)