People v. Russell, 79 N.Y.2d 1024 (1992)
Lay witnesses familiar with a defendant’s appearance before a crime can offer identification testimony based on surveillance photos, even if they didn’t witness the crime, to assist the jury, especially if the defendant altered their appearance after the crime.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of lay witness testimony identifying the defendant in bank surveillance photographs. Four lay witnesses, who knew the defendant before the robbery, identified him in the photos, even though they were not eyewitnesses to the crime. This was deemed permissible because the defendant had changed his appearance after the robbery by shaving his beard. The court reasoned that the testimony aided the jury in making an independent assessment, and did not constitute improper bolstering. The court also held that the testimony was not cumulative because the bank tellers, while identifying the defendant in court, did not specifically identify him in the surveillance photographs.
Facts
The defendant was accused of bank robbery. The prosecution presented bank surveillance photographs as evidence. The defendant had a beard at the time of the robbery, but shaved it off shortly afterward. The prosecution called four lay witnesses (defendant’s roommate, his roommate’s mother, his landlord, and a friend) who knew the defendant before the robbery. These witnesses identified the defendant as the person depicted in the surveillance photographs.
Procedural History
The trial court allowed the lay witness identification testimony. The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing four lay witnesses, who did not witness the bank robbery, to identify the defendant as the person depicted in bank surveillance photographs.
2. Whether the lay witnesses’ testimony constituted improper bolstering or an improper opinion about an ultimate fact.
3. Whether the lay witnesses’ photograph identifications should have been excluded because they were unduly cumulative and duplicative of the bank tellers’ eyewitness testimony.
Holding
1. No, because the witnesses’ testimony aided the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the bank photographs was indeed the defendant, especially since the defendant altered his appearance after the crime.
2. No, because the testimony concerned the witnesses’ personal knowledge of the defendant’s appearance at the time the photographs were taken, not a previous extrajudicial identification of the defendant or the photographs.
3. No, because the defendant did not object to the number of witnesses presented, and the bank tellers’ testimony was not duplicated, as the tellers did not specifically identify the defendant in the surveillance photographs.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the lay witnesses’ testimony was relevant because the robber’s identity was the central issue in the case, and the prosecution presented proof that the defendant changed his appearance immediately after the crime. The court distinguished this case from situations involving prior extrajudicial identifications or identifications of photographs of the defendant. The court emphasized that the witnesses’ personal knowledge of the defendant’s appearance at the time the photographs were taken allowed them to aid the jury in determining whether the person in the photographs was the defendant. The court cited cases from other jurisdictions (United States v. Robinson and United States v. Farnsworth) in support of its reasoning. The court further found that the testimony was not cumulative because the bank tellers, although identifying the defendant in court as the robber, did not state that he was the person in the surveillance photographs. The court emphasized the tellers only testified the photographs accurately portrayed the crime scene and that the man in the photograph was the robber.