From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1990
161 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 21, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thorp, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's claim that the hearing court was unable to make a fair ruling on the admissibility of the complainant's proposed in-court identification testimony since the hearing court refused his request to have the complainant called as a witness at the Wade hearing. There is no general requirement that the complainant testify at a Wade hearing; "it is only when the defense has established that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, after the prosecution had met its initial burden of going forward to demonstrate reasonableness and the lack of suggestiveness, that evidence concerning an independent source for the in-court identification must be elicited from the complainant" (People v Tweedy, 134 A.D.2d 467, 468; see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327; People v. Brown, 111 A.D.2d 928). Since it was established that the complainant herein identified the defendant to the police before any police-initiated identification procedures took place, there was no need for the People to establish an independent source for the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant.

In addition, it was not improper for the prosecutor, in his summation, to comment on the complainant's motivation to lie since his credibility had been called into question (see, People v. Torres, 141 A.D.2d 682, 684; People v. Glenn, 140 A.D.2d 623; People v. Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473). It was also not improper for the prosecutor to comment on the seriousness of the complainant's injury since this was fair comment on an element of the charges and was made in response to the remarks of counsel for the codefendant, who denigrated the complainant's injury.

The defendant's other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1990
161 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Stephens

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY STEPHENS…

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

Date published: May 21, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 353

Citing Cases

People v. Wan

This claim is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not make such a request and cannot rely…

People v. Vasquez

We decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant's…