People v. Russell, 594 N.E.2d 922 (N.Y. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Russell, 594 N.E.2d 922 (N.Y. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
138 citation events (123 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The People v. Farod Mosley, 239 N.E.3d 928 (N.Y. 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
79 N.Y.2d at 1025 Permitting expert testimony to aid jury assessment28 citing cases21 listed here
  • The People v. Farod Mosley, 239 N.E.3d 928 (N.Y. 2024).published
    Because the trier of fact is solely charged with determining a defendant’s guilt, evidence must assist the jury in its deliberative process (People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]; People v Huertas, 75 NY2d 487, 493 [1990]).
  • Matter of Sidy T., 2024 NY Slip Op 00251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).published 2 cites
    The testimony "served to aid the [trier of fact] in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the [appellant]" ( People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), in view of the detective's familiari…
  • People v. Lee, 2023 NY Slip Op 01239 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published 2 cites
    The court also providently exercised its discretion in permitting a witness to express an opinion that defendant was the person depicted on surveillance video ( see People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]; People v DeJesus , 192 AD3d…
  • HOV Servs., Inc. v. ASG Tech. Grp., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published
    Plaintiff's argument that its expert should nonetheless be allowed to offer the disputed testimony as a fact witness is unavailing, as lay witnesses are not ordinarily permitted to offer opinion testimony, and this is not a case where it i…
  • People v. Angulo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00136 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022).published
    The testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant" ( People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), in view of the detective's familiarity with defen…
  • People v. Mosley, 2021 NY Slip Op 07393 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021).published 2 cites
    Initially, we conclude that County Court abused its discretion in allowing a police detective to identify defendant in a surveillance video depicting the shooting for which defendant was arrested ( see generally People v Russell , 79 NY2d…
  • People v. Orozco, 2021 NY Slip Op 06926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2021).published 2 cites
    The officer was in a better position than the jurors to identify defendant on the video, and his testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant" ( Peo…
  • People v. Lee, 2021 NY Slip Op 06774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2021).published 2 cites
    This testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant" ( People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]).
  • People v. Hill, 2021 NY Slip Op 06558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2021).published 2 cites
    The testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant" ( People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), in view of the detectives' familiarity with defen…
  • People v. Rivera, 2019 NY Slip Op 2262 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2019).published
    This testimony "served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [videos] was indeed the defendant" ( People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), because there was "some basis for concluding th…
Show 11 more citing cases
  • People v. Pinkston, 2019 NY Slip Op 1171 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2019).published
    The circumstances also warranted testimony by the officer identifying defendants as persons depicted in videotapes ( see People v Russell , 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]).
  • People v. Boyd, 151 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2017).published
    This testimony “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [videos] was indeed the defendant” (People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), because there was “some basis for concluding that…
  • People v. Jackson, 151 A.D.3d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    This testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment of whether the person depicted in the video was the defendant (see People v Sanchez, 21 NY3d 216, 225 [2013]; People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]; People v D…
  • People v. Rush, 148 A.D.3d 1601 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    Furthermore, the jury had the opportunity to compare the photos of the person making a deposit and a withdrawal at the ATM at the relevant times and was in a position to make “an independent assessment regarding whether the [person] in the…
  • People v. Daniels, 140 A.D.3d 1083 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting this testimony, as there was some basis for concluding that the police detective, who knew the defendant from his patrols of the defendant’s neighborhood, was mo…
  • Hotaling v. Carter, 137 A.D.3d 1661 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2016).published
    Although under certain circumstances a witness may be permitted to give opinion testimony concerning particular persons, places, or things depicted in a properly authenticated surveillance video (see People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1…
  • People v. Montanez, 135 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published
    This testimony “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant” (People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]), because there was “some basis for concluding that…
  • People v. Hardy, 115 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    The witnesses’ testimony did not provide improper lay opinions, but “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment” about the video (see People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]).
  • People v. Sanchez, 991 N.E.2d 698 (N.Y. 2013).published
    It was not an abuse of discretion to allow the detectives to state their beliefs that defendant was depicted in the taxi cam photographs because it was undisputed that his appearance had changed since the robbery occurred (see generally Pe…
  • People v. Serrano, 74 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    In any event, the claim is without merit (see People v Russell, 165 AD2d 327, 332 [1991], affd 79 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1992]; People v Rivera, 259 AD2d 316, 317 [1999]; People v Morgan, 214 AD2d 809, 810 [1995]).
  • People v. Coleman, 78 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010).published
    A lay witness may offer an opinion about the identity of a person captured in a photograph or videotape to aid the jury in cases where “the witness is more likely to correctly identify the [person] . . . than is the jury” (People v Morgan,…
594 N.E.2d at 923 cited at this page1 citing case
  • State v. Gardner, 955 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).published
    United States v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Allen, 787 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.1986), judgment vacated on other grounds, 479 U.S. 1077 , 107 S.Ct. 1271 , 94 L.Ed.2d 132 (1987); United States v. Stormer, 938 F.2d 759 (7th…
79 N.Y.2d at 1026 four noneyewitness photo identifications not cumulative of eyewitness identifications1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • People v. McCray, 12 N.E.3d 1079 (N.Y. 2014).published
    (four noneyewitness photo identifications not cumulative of eyewitness identifications)
79 N.Y.2d at 1024 “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the video was indeed the defendant”0 citing cases10 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (88%)
    Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    The People of the State of New York
    v.
    Saul Russell
    New York Court of Appeals.
    May 7, 1992.
    Published opinion
    594 N.E.2d 922
    1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1299
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Bruce A. Petito for appellant., William V Grady, District Attorney (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
    Cited by 98 opinions  |  Published

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    Memorandum.

    The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

    The trial court did hot abuse its discretion or otherwise err as a matter of law in allowing four lay witnesses — defendant’s roommate, his roommate’s mother, his landlord, and a friend — who did not witness the bank robbery, to identify the defendant as the person depicted as the robber in two bank surveillance photographs (see, People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 348). Their testimony was clearly relevant inasmuch as the robber’s identity was the central issue in the case and the People presented ample proof that defendant had changed his appearance immediately after the crime by having his beard shaved.

    Nor did the testimony of the four noneyewitnesses constitute improper bolstering or an improper opinion about an ultimate fact. The challenged testimony did not concern a previous extrajudicial identification of defendant (see, People v Bonnet, 134 AD2d 436, 437, lv denied 70 NY2d 953) or of the photographs of defendant (see, People v Lindsay, 42 NY2d 9, 12). Rather, given the personal knowledge these witnesses had of defendant’s appearance as of the time when the photographs were taken, their testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the bank photographs was indeed the defendant, a task made more onerous by defendant’s altering his appearance after commission of the crime (see, e.g., United States v Robinson, 804 F2d 280, 282 [4th Cir 1986]; United States v Farnsworth, 729 F2d 1158, 1160 [8th Cir 1984]).

    Also unavailing are defendant’s arguments that the four[*1026] noneyewitnesses’ photograph identifications should have been excluded because they were unduly cumulative and duplicative of the bank tellers’ eyewitness testimony. No objection having been registered as to the number of witnesses presented, this issue was not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Beyond that, the bank tellers’ testimony cannot be said to have been duplicated for the tellers were not generally familiar with defendant’s appearance at the time of the robbery. And, although they did identify defendant in court as the bank robber, they never stated that he was the person in the surveillance photographs, only that the photographs accurately portrayed the crime scene and that the man in the photograph was the robber.

    Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

    Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Yesawich, Jr.,* concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

    Order affirmed in a memorandum.

    Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.