Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly ruled after a Wade hearing that the eyewitness' observations of the appellant over a period of a month and his observations of the defendant during the robbery constituted an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Accordingly any suggestiveness which may have resulted from the showup identification, which was suppressed, was not prejudicial (People v Ingram,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.