From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bumbray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1999
259 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 18, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).


Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The showup was justified by its close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545) and was not rendered unduly suggestive by the simultaneous display of multiple suspects ( see, People v. Washington, 160 A.D.2d 205, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 798).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom established the element of identity.

Defendant forfeited his right to be present at his trial by absconding after being told at a morning session that his trial was to begin that afternoon, and, under those circumstances, the requirement of warnings pursuant to People v. Parker ( 57 N.Y.2d 136) did not apply ( People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 444).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Bumbray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1999
259 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Bumbray

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL BUMBRAY…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 9

Citing Cases

People v. Gilley

Indeed, the conversation that the victim purported to have with officers "merely conveyed what a witness of…