From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 20, 1971
36 A.D.2d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

May 20, 1971

Appeal from the Monroe County Court.

Present — Del Vecchio, J.P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After a Wade hearing, the court found that the pretrial identification procedures wherein the victim identified defendant were unfair and further that the People failed to establish that the in-court identification had an independent basis. Consequently, it was error to have permitted the victim to make an in-court identification of defendant at the trial. ( People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 607.) Admission of such in-court identification is reversible error unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18.) We find that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant confessed to the crime giving details which only the perpetrator would know. He was also identified by an independent witness. Under these circumstances, the victim's in-court identification does not warrant a reversal of the conviction. ( People v. Gonzalez, 27 N.Y.2d 53.)


Summaries of

People v. Roe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 20, 1971
36 A.D.2d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

People v. Roe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ELMER GEORGE ROE…

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

Date published: May 20, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

People v. Tindal

The later acquired evidence was not the product of any illegal police activity that violated defendant's…

People v. Pharo

Since said chauffeur had ample opportunity to observe defendant for a considerable period and under favorable…