People v. Ganci, 27 N.Y.2d 418 (1971)

An in-court identification is admissible if the prosecution establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the witness’s ability to recognize the defendant is based on an independent source and is not tainted by an earlier suggestive pretrial identification procedure, but the admissibility of prior photographic identification, when elicited by the defendant, is not preserved for review.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of an in-court identification following a pretrial identification. The court held that the in-court identification was permissible because the trial court correctly determined, after a voir dire, that the witness’s identification ability was independent of potentially suggestive pretrial procedures (photographic display and a showup). Additionally, the court declined to address the admissibility of prior photographic identification since the defense counsel initially elicited that information during cross-examination, failing to preserve the issue for appeal.

Facts

The complaining witness identified the defendant in court. Prior to trial, the witness had identified the defendant through photographs shown by the police and in a showup in the courthouse corridor.

Procedural History

The trial judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the in-court identification. The trial court found the in-court identification admissible. The defendant appealed, arguing that the in-court identification was tainted by the prior photographic display and showup. The defendant also argued that the fact that the witness had previously identified the defendant through photographs was improperly brought before the jury.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the in-court identification was admissible, considering the witness had previously identified the defendant through photographs and a showup?

2. Whether the admission of evidence regarding the witness’s prior photographic identification of the defendant is grounds for reversal when that evidence was first elicited by the defendant’s counsel?

Holding

1. No, because the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s finding that the witness’s ability to recognize the defendant was not the product of, or affected by, the prior photographic display or the showup.

2. No, because the question of its admissibility against the defendant has not been preserved for appellate review since this fact was first elicited by the defendant’s own counsel upon cross-examination.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the trial judge had properly conducted a voir dire to assess the basis of the witness’s in-court identification. The court found that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the determination that the in-court identification was based on an independent source, untainted by the pretrial identification procedures. Citing People v. Ballott, the court reiterated the importance of determining whether the witness’s recognition of the defendant stemmed from an independent recollection. As the Court stated, the record supported the finding that the witness’s ability to recognize the defendant was not the product of, or affected by, either the photographs she saw or by the showup. Regarding the photographic identification, the court noted that since defense counsel first elicited the information about the witness identifying the defendant through photographs, the defendant could not later claim it as grounds for reversal. The court declined to reconsider its prior holdings on this matter, noting that the issue had not been properly preserved for review. The court effectively applied the invited error doctrine, preventing a party from raising an issue on appeal that they themselves introduced at trial.