90 N.Y.2d 533 (1997)
The prosecution bears the initial burden of producing evidence demonstrating that a showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, even when conducted in close proximity to the crime.
Summary
Enrique Ortiz was convicted of attempted murder and weapons possession after being identified by two police officers he shot at. The officers identified Ortiz in a showup conducted after they received hospital treatment. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving the showup was not unduly suggestive because they presented no evidence about the circumstances of the identification procedure itself. The Court emphasized that while proximity to the crime makes a showup reasonable, the prosecution must still offer evidence of the showup’s fairness.
Facts
Two police officers, Colon and Sullivan, responded to a call and encountered Ortiz outside an apartment building. Ortiz shot at the officers, and they returned fire. Ortiz fled into the building. Colon and Sullivan were taken to the hospital for treatment. Another officer, Reardon, arrived and, after investigation, found Ortiz hiding in an apartment within the building. Ortiz was taken to the lobby. Colon and Sullivan were brought back to the scene and identified Ortiz as the shooter. Officer Reardon, the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing, did not witness the showup itself.
Procedural History
Ortiz was convicted in the trial court. He moved to suppress the identification testimony, arguing the People had not shown the showup was proper. The trial court denied the motion, finding the showup permissible due to its proximity to the crime. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the People met their burden of demonstrating that the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, thus warranting admission of the identification testimony at trial.
Holding
No, because the People failed to present any evidence concerning the circumstances of the showup itself to demonstrate the procedure was not unduly suggestive.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that showup identifications are inherently suggestive and disfavored. While showups conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime are not “presumptively infirm,” they still require careful scrutiny for unacceptable suggestiveness. The Court stated that while the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving the showup was unduly suggestive, the People first have the burden to produce evidence validating the admission of such evidence. This includes demonstrating the showup was reasonable under the circumstances (proximity to the crime) and producing some evidence relating to the showup itself to demonstrate it was not unduly suggestive.
The Court noted the absence of any witness who could testify to the circumstances under which Ortiz was identified, stating: “Indeed, from this record, it cannot even be ascertained whether the identification procedure utilized here was a true showup or an impromptu lineup.”
The Court emphasized the People’s procedural burden is minimal, requiring merely some proof of the circumstances of the on-site identification procedure. The court cited People v. Chipp, stating that “the People have the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure.” Without such proof, the defendant is unduly prejudiced in their efforts to establish whether an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive.