From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

stating that any inferential bolstering was harmless since the strong and positive identification testimony precluded any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the error

Summary of this case from Alleyne v. Racette

Opinion

April 5, 1999

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the show up identifications made two days after the robberies. We disagree. Since both complainants spontaneously recognized the defendant on the street before notifying the police, the identifications made a few minutes later when the police arrived were merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Bazelias, 220 A.D.2d 443; People v. Coleman, 214 A.D.2d 619; People v. Mack, 203 A.D.2d 131, 132; People v. Sanford, 184 A.D.2d 671).

The defendant's contention that the testimony of the arresting officer constituted improper bolstering in violation of People v. Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel made no objection to this testimony at trial (CPL 470.05; People v. Higgins, 216 A.D.2d 487, 488; People v. White, 210 A.D.2d 271; People v. Tinsley, 159 A.D.2d 602). In any event, any inferential bolstering which may have occurred is harmless since the strong and positive identification testimony in this case precludes any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error ( see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Padilla, 219 A.D.2d 688, 689; People v. White, supra; People v. Gordillo, 191 A.D.2d 455).

S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1999
260 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

stating that any inferential bolstering was harmless since the strong and positive identification testimony precluded any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the error

Summary of this case from Alleyne v. Racette
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRIAN ANDERSON…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 153

Citing Cases

Blue v. Duncan

[Blue's] claim that this testimony amounted to improper bolstering of [Officer Kelly's] identification of…

People v. Melendez

The defendant's contention that a detective's testimony improperly bolstered a prior identification of the…