Criminal Law · MBE-tested

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Gibson, Appellant

179 A.D.2d 567·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1992·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gibson, Appellant. [MAJORITY] Although the detective who arrested defendant should not have been permitted to testify that the arrest was made after a conversation with an eyewitness (People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 821), this testimony did not bolster the testimony of a second eyewitness to the robbery, who, like the first victim, said that defendant had previously made purchases in his store. Nor did it bolster the identification testimony of a third victim, who had been twice robbed by defendant in unrelated incidents, and who identified defendant at a lineup. Clearly, the Trowbridge error was harmless (see, People v Burgess, 66 AD2d 667). Defendant’s remaining claims are unpreserved or meritless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.