People v. Wright, 29 N.Y.2d 408 (1972)

When a pretrial identification procedure is unduly suggestive, the prosecution must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a subsequent in-court identification is based on an independent source, untainted by the suggestive procedure.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of robbery. The victim identified him in court, but this identification was preceded by a potentially suggestive photo array and a highly suggestive showup. The prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defendant about statements made at the police station without Miranda warnings, using those statements to impeach his credibility. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the showup violated due process and that the prosecutor’s cross-examination exceeded the scope of the defendant’s direct testimony, thus improperly introducing evidence obtained in violation of Miranda.

Facts

Mrs. Wright was robbed in her apartment by an intruder who was present for 30-45 minutes. She later identified the defendant from a photo array of parolees and known criminals. The police then conducted a showup where she identified the defendant. During his arrest, black socks were found in the defendant’s pocket, relevant because the victim said the robber wore black socks on his hands.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of robbery. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the identification evidence, arguing it was tainted by the suggestive showup. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the in-court identification would be sufficient even without the pretrial identifications. The defendant appealed, arguing the improper admission of identification testimony and improper cross-examination.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the showup identification procedure was so suggestive as to violate due process, thereby requiring the prosecution to demonstrate that the in-court identification was independently sourced.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant regarding statements made at the police station, without proper Miranda warnings, was permissible impeachment.

Holding

1. Yes, because the showup, conducted after the witness had already selected a photograph and been told the police might pick someone up, was unduly suggestive, requiring the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification had an independent source.
2. No, because the prosecutor’s cross-examination exceeded the scope of the defendant’s direct testimony and improperly introduced evidence obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that the showup, where the victim was told she would see the man whose photo she picked out, was “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to an erroneous identification that it violated due process of law.” The court emphasized that the burden was on the People to establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that the in-court identification was not tainted by the suggestive showup, citing People v. Ballott. Since the hearing court did not properly utilize the preliminary hearing, because of the misplacement of the burden of proof and the omission from the People’s case of Mrs. Wright’s testimony, it made it impossible for the hearing court to determine whether an in-court identification would have independent value. The court stated, “It was error for the court on the identification suppression hearing to hold that the in-court identification would be ‘sufficient’ without first requiring the prosecution to establish by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that it was neither the product of, nor affected by, the improper pretrial showup.”

Regarding the cross-examination, the court held that while statements inadmissible on direct examination can be used for impeachment, this is only permissible when the defendant “opens the door” by testifying to the matter on direct examination, citing People v. Harris. The court found that the defendant’s direct testimony was limited to a denial of guilt and alibi and did not address events at the police station. Therefore, the prosecutor’s cross-examination “in order to lay a foundation for the tainted evidence on rebuttal” was improper, citing People v. Miles. The court found that this error was not harmless because the improperly admitted statement related to a crucial element of the case – the method of the crime and the defendant’s identification.

The court explicitly stated that the black socks found on the defendant were admissible since they were discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest.