(Download) "People State New York v. Irving Jones" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Irving Jones
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 03, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), rendered December 16, 1976, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendants motion to suppress identification testimony. Judgment affirmed. Defendant Irving Jones and co-defendant Herbert Reid were convicted in connection with the armed robbery of a social club in Brooklyn. Guilt was established by overwhelming proof. We previously affirmed the co-defendants conviction without opinion (People v Reid, 66 A.D.2d 1034, mot for lv to app den 46 N.Y.2d 921 [Wachtler, J.]) and while we similarly find no basis for reversal on this appeal, there are contentions raised which warrant brief comment. We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress the identification testimony of one of the victims. The initial selection of defendants photograph from well over 100 photographs, which resulted in a positive identification, was not tainted by police suggestion and, in any event, the observations at the time of the robbery constituted an independent source for the in-court identification (cf. People v Alexander, 88 A.D.2d 749). Nor were the People required to give notice, pursuant to CPL 710.30, after the victim had viewed the defendant at a hearing in Criminal Court, as that hearing did not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of the notice statute (see CPL 710.20, subd 6; People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445). Defendants claim that the trial court should have stricken all of the victims testimony from the record, after he invoked the privilege against self incrimination and refused to answer questions regarding his own possession of weapons, is similarly without merit. While a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right of confrontation when a witness asserts a blanket claim of the privilege against self incrimination upon cross-examination (People v Schneider, 36 N.Y.2d 708, revg on dissenting opn at 44 A.D.2d 845), the confrontation clause is [99 A.D.2d 471 Page 472]
 "People State New York v. Irving Jones" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}