The identification procedures employed here were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp,
Defendant's "inferential bolstering" claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that any "inferential bolstering" that may have occurred was rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence of guilt (
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.