Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the complainant's identification was tainted by "important inconsistencies" and therefore should have been suppressed is based erroneously upon the complainant's trial testimony. As this court has recently noted "[t]he propriety of a denial of a motion to suppress `must be judged on the evidence before the suppression court'" (People v King,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
