Defendant was charged with grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny as the result of his theft of jewelry from display cases in two department stores. Convicted after trial, he appeals, contending, inter alia, that (1) the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish his guilt, (2) the photographic array identification procedure was unduly suggestive, warranting preclusion of the in-court identification testimony, (3...
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.