People v. Blake, 64 N.Y.2d 730 (1984)
Pretrial identification procedures do not require per se suppression if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the procedures were not unduly suggestive, even if some improprieties occurred.
Summary
Blake was convicted of grand larceny. He appealed, arguing that pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive, warranting suppression. The victim identified Blake in a photo array and a subsequent lineup, despite changes in his appearance. The police made some suggestive remarks during the identification process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the identification procedures, while not perfect, were not so suggestive as to require automatic suppression. The court emphasized that there was sufficient evidence to support the lower court’s finding that the identifications were based on the victim’s independent recollection.
Facts
Joann Blaha was robbed of a gold chain. She chased the thief and directly faced him before he escaped in a taxi. Blaha described the thief to Officer Murphy, who indicated he had a suspect fitting the description. Murphy showed Blaha a photo array containing Blake’s picture, which she identified within 20 seconds. She was then shown the original color photo of Blake, which she also identified. Two months later, she identified Blake in a lineup despite his changed appearance (hair, beard, weight).
Procedural History
The trial court denied Blake’s motion to suppress the pretrial and in-court identifications, finding that the victim’s identification was based on her independent recollection. The jury convicted Blake of grand larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Blake appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the pretrial identification procedures used by the police were so unduly suggestive as to require per se suppression of the identifications and taint the in-court identification.
Holding
No, because there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive, and the identifications were based on the victim’s independent recollection despite some improprieties by the officer.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from People v. Adams, where the identification was undeniably suggestive. Here, the court found sufficient evidence to support the lower court’s finding that the procedures were not unduly suggestive. While Officer Murphy made suggestive remarks (mentioning a suspect was in custody, showing a color photo after the initial identification, and indicating the chosen person would be in the lineup), these improprieties did not automatically contaminate the identifications. The court cited People v. Logan, noting that informing a victim that a suspect is in custody does not automatically taint an identification. The court emphasized that the victim had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the crime and the subsequent chase. The court noted the significant changes in Blake’s appearance between the photo and the lineup, suggesting the victim’s identification was based on her memory, not just the suggestive procedures. Unlike People v. Rahming, where the police presented the defendant alone after the photo identification, Blake was identified in a lineup. Regarding the denial to display defendant’s tattooed hands, the court stated that the defendant offered no proof regarding the presence of the tattoos on the date in issue. The court also stated there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow defendant to testify on the tattoo point, without being subject to cross-examination concerning his past convictions.