From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 4, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant (see, People v Rosario, 222 A.D.2d 460 [decided herewith]) were identified by two civilian witnesses immediately after they had broken into, and stolen a television set from, an apartment located at 575 Warren Street in Brooklyn. One witness, who had telephoned 911 after seeing the codefendant on the fire escape, later saw the defendant carrying a television set from the building. The second witness, who had seen the codefendant over 100 times before the burglary, observed the two men through the peephole of her front door as they took the television set downstairs.

On appeal, the defendant asserts that "both [witnesses] testified to only a single [pretrial] identification of [the defendants]" rather than the two pretrial identification procedures which occurred according to the police officer who testified at the Wade hearing, that the circumstances of these two identifications were "highly suggestive", and that the witnesses' accounts of the identifications differ "significantly" from the account given by the police officer at the Wade hearing. The defendant argues that, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defense counsel's application to reopen the Wade hearing during the trial. We disagree.

Nothing was revealed during the course of the trial which, if it had been revealed during the prior Wade hearing, would have had the slightest chance of altering the determination ultimately made with respect to the reliability of the identifications of the defendant by the witnesses. Under all of the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court neither erred nor improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reopen the Wade hearing (see, CPL 710.40; People v Fuentes, 53 N.Y.2d 892, 894).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. DeJesus

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE DeJESUS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 4, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 712

Citing Cases

People v. Velez

Stated simply, the defendant cannot be penalized for failing to do what the law would not have allowed him to…

People v. Sebastian Delamota

40; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894). Accordingly, under the…