People v. Edmonson, 84 N.Y.2d 950 (1994)
When a witness has participated in a suggestive showup, their subsequent physical description of the perpetrator is inadmissible unless the prosecution proves the description is untainted by the showup, but this error can be deemed harmless if other evidence corroborates the witness’s testimony.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals considered the admissibility of a complainant’s physical description of a robber after a suggestive showup. The complainant, robbed at knifepoint, later identified the defendant at the police station. The trial court suppressed the showup and in-court identifications but allowed the complainant to describe the robber. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that while the physical description should not have been admitted without proof it was untainted by the showup, the error was harmless because other evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony, including her identification of the knife and the cloth wrapped around the robber’s hand.
Facts
The complainant was robbed at knifepoint in an elevator.
A neighbor saw a man resembling the defendant fleeing the building with cloth wrapped around his hand.
Police stopped the defendant nearby in connection with another crime; he also had cloth wrapped around his hand.
Complainant’s husband identified the defendant to the police as the robber, leading to a search that revealed the complainant’s jewelry and a knife on the defendant.
The complainant identified the defendant as the robber at the police station.
Procedural History
The trial court suppressed both the showup identification and the in-court identification due to the suggestive nature of the showup and the lack of an independent source for the in-court identification.
Despite the suppression, the trial court allowed the complainant to provide a physical description of the robber.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant’s physical description of the robber, given after a suggestive showup, was admissible at trial when there was no finding that the description was untainted by the showup.
Whether the admission of the physical description, if erroneous, constituted harmless error.
Holding
No, because there was no finding that such description, given for the first time after the showup, was untainted.
Yes, because other evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony, rendering the error harmless.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on People v. Moss, 80 NY2d 857, which established that a physical description given after a suggestive showup is inadmissible unless the prosecution demonstrates that the description is untainted by the showup.
The Court acknowledged that admitting the complainant’s physical description of the robber was an error, stating, “while it was improper for complainant to give a physical description of the robber — there having been no finding that such description, given for the first time after the showup, was untainted”.
However, the Court applied the harmless error doctrine from People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241, finding that the error did not contribute to the conviction because the complainant’s detailed description and identification of the knife, as well as the fact that cloth was wrapped around her assailant’s hand, were corroborated by other evidence. The Court noted that the complainant testified to details she could not have gleaned from the showup.
The Court concluded that the properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant’s guilt, rendering the error harmless. Defendant’s version of events (colliding with a lookalike while jogging who dropped the knife and jewelry) was not deemed credible in light of the other evidence.