People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445 (1992)
A defendant has the right to cross-examine a witness called by the prosecution at a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence, especially when the witness’s testimony is critical to determining the admissibility of evidence.
Summary
Rodriguez was convicted of first-degree robbery. Prior to trial, a hearing was held to determine if a *Wade* hearing was necessary regarding a photo array identification. The complainant testified she had seen Rodriguez many times before the robbery. The trial court limited the defense’s cross-examination of the complainant. The Court of Appeals held that restricting cross-examination was error because Rodriguez had the right to cross-examine the witness. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance and remitted the case for a new hearing, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination to determine the extent of the complainant’s prior familiarity with the defendant, which was crucial to whether the photo identification was merely confirmatory.
Facts
Defendant was charged with first-degree robbery stemming from a knifepoint robbery in The Bronx. The complainant identified Rodriguez from a photo array. At a pre-trial hearing, the complainant testified that she had seen Rodriguez more than ten times at the bodega where she worked and over twenty times in the neighborhood. The trial court curtailed cross-examination of the complainant regarding her familiarity with the defendant prior to the robbery.
Procedural History
The trial court determined the photo identification was confirmatory, that CPL 710.30 notice was not required, and there was no impermissible suggestiveness by the police. Rodriguez was convicted after a jury trial. The Appellate Division affirmed, acknowledging the curtailment of cross-examination was error, but finding the complainant’s testimony sufficiently established the confirmatory nature of the photo identification. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for a new hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in restricting the defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant at the pre-trial hearing regarding the complainant’s prior familiarity with the defendant.
Holding
Yes, because once the complainant was called as a witness for the People at the hearing, the defendant had the right to cross-examine her, and the curtailment of that right eliminated any supportable basis upon which to find that the photo identification was the product of prior familiarity and, therefore, merely confirmatory.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that restricting cross-examination was a reversible error. The court stated that “once the complainant was called as a witness for the People at the hearing, defendant had the right to cross-examine her”. The central issue at the hearing was the extent of the complainant’s prior familiarity with the defendant, which became crucial at trial in this single-witness identification case. The preclusion of an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on that key issue eliminated any supportable basis upon which to find that the photo identification was the product of prior familiarity and, therefore, merely confirmatory.
Because the trial court’s determination that the identification was merely confirmatory rested on an incomplete record due to the restriction on cross-examination, the Court of Appeals remitted the case for a new pre-*Wade* hearing. The court instructed that if the pre-*Wade* hearing results in a determination that a *Wade* hearing is not required, the judgment should be amended to reflect that determination, and the judgment of conviction and sentence should be treated as affirmed. Otherwise, a *Wade* hearing should be held and further proceedings, including a new trial, carried out as warranted.