Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony motion was properly denied. Upon our review of the photographic array, we agree with the hearing court's finding that the difference between the defendant's hairstyle and the hairstyles of the fillers was insignificant and did not call undue attention to the defendant (see People v Chipp,
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.