People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834 (1979)
An in-court identification is admissible if it is based on an independent source of recollection or if no police identification procedure took place, and a claim of denial of a speedy trial must be raised at trial to be preserved for appellate review.
Summary
Defendants Whisby and Price appealed their convictions, arguing that they were denied a speedy trial and that the in-court identification by the victim should have been suppressed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the speedy trial issue was not preserved for review because it was not raised at trial. The Court also found that the in-court identification of Price was based on an independent source and that no police identification procedure occurred with respect to Whisby, making the identification admissible. The Court found no merit in the defendants’ remaining contentions.
Facts
The victim identified Price in court. Prior to trial, the victim identified Whisby on a public street in White Plains without any police involvement. The defendants were convicted, and on appeal, they argued that their right to a speedy trial had been violated and that the in-court identification by the victim should have been suppressed.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the defendants. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the convictions. The defendants then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendants’ contention that they were denied their right to a speedy trial may be considered on appeal when the issue was not raised at trial.
2. Whether the in-court identification of defendant Price by the victim ought to have been suppressed.
3. Whether the in-court identification of defendant Whisby by the victim ought to have been suppressed.
Holding
1. No, because defendants failed to raise the issue at trial.
2. No, because the in-court identification was based upon an independent source of recollection.
3. No, because the complaining witness identified Whisby on a public street, and no police identification procedures took place.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that a claim of denial of a speedy trial must be raised at trial to be preserved for appellate review, citing People v. Primmer and People v. Adams. The Court stated that it could not consider the defendants’ speedy trial claim because they failed to raise it at trial.
Regarding Price’s in-court identification, the Court found that there was evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that the identification was based upon an independent source of recollection. The Court emphasized that it cannot disturb such findings of fact, citing People v. Burrows and People v. Peterson.
As for Whisby’s in-court identification, the Court relied on the affirmed finding of fact that he was identified by the complaining witness on a public street and that “there were no police identification procedures necessary and none, in fact, took place.” The court cited People v. Logan, noting that under such circumstances, the identification was proper. The Court suggested that the lack of police involvement distinguished this case from situations involving potentially suggestive police identification procedures.
The Court summarily dismissed the defendants’ remaining contentions, finding them to be without merit.