New York Law Review

Tag: Forfeiture of Rights

  • People v. Perkins, 15 N.Y.3d 201 (2010): Admissibility of Photographic Identification After Defendant Obstructs Lineup

    People v. Perkins, 15 N.Y.3d 201 (2010)

    A defendant forfeits the right to exclude photographic identification evidence when the defendant’s own misconduct, such as refusing to participate in a lineup, makes a corporeal identification impossible.

    Summary

    This case addresses the admissibility of a photographic identification when a defendant obstructs a police lineup. The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant forfeits the right to exclude photographic identification evidence if their own misconduct thwarts a corporeal lineup. In this case, the defendant refused to cooperate with a lineup, leading the police to show the victim a photographic array, from which the victim identified the defendant. The court reasoned that the defendant should not benefit from their own wrongdoing, and the photographic identification was admissible to ensure a fair trial.

    Facts

    The defendant was suspected of involvement in an armed robbery where the victim was shot. Based on information received, police created a photographic array including the defendant’s picture. The victim identified the defendant from the array. When the defendant was arrested and a lineup was scheduled, the defendant refused to participate, kicking, spitting, and cursing. As a result, a traditional lineup was impossible. The detective took a photograph of the defendant and photos of the proposed fillers and showed the victim the array of photos; the victim identified the defendant’s picture.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court held a Wade hearing and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s lineup identification made months later, as well as the victim’s prospective in-court identification. The court deferred ruling on the admissibility of the photographic identification. At trial, the trial court ruled the photographic identification admissible. The defendant was convicted of attempted murder and robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant, who obstructs a corporeal lineup, forfeits the right to exclude evidence of a photographic identification made necessary by that obstruction?

    Holding

    Yes, because a defendant should not be able to benefit from their own misconduct by preventing a corporeal lineup and then objecting to the introduction of a photographic identification that resulted from their actions.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while New York law generally excludes pretrial photographic identifications due to concerns about distortion and potential prejudice (jury inferring prior arrests), this rule does not apply when a defendant’s misconduct prevents a corporeal lineup. Citing the principle that “the law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong,” the court held that the defendant forfeited the right to rely on the exclusionary rule. The court emphasized that the detective’s testimony clarified that the photograph shown to the victim was taken on the day of the aborted lineup, mitigating any potential prejudice. The trial court also reasonably concluded that a later lineup identification might be viewed as less reliable than an identification closer to the crime. This ruling balances the need to protect defendants from unfair identification procedures with the need to ensure that they do not benefit from obstructing justice. As the Court stated in People v. Geraci, 85 NY2d 359, 366 (1995), “the maxim that the law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong…creat[es] a forfeiture dictated by sound public policy”.

  • People v. Corley, 67 N.Y.2d 105 (1986): Consequences of Dismissed Appeals and Sentencing In Absentia

    People v. Corley, 67 N.Y.2d 105 (1986)

    Dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits of all claims that could have been litigated, and a defendant forfeits the right to be present at sentencing by willfully absconding to frustrate scheduled proceedings.

    Summary

    Defendant Corley was convicted of robbery, but the trial court set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the conviction. Corley was informed of the reinstatement and ordered to appear for further proceedings. He appeared but left during a break and did not return. A bench warrant was issued, and he was later sentenced in absentia. He appealed, but his appeal was initially dismissed when he absconded. The Court of Appeals held that dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute acted as an adjudication on the merits. It further held that Corley forfeited his right to be present at sentencing by willfully absconding, justifying sentencing in absentia.

    Facts

    Dwight Corley was convicted of second-degree robbery. The trial court set aside the jury verdict, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision and reinstated the guilty verdict. Corley was notified to appear in court following the reinstatement of his conviction. He appeared with counsel but left during a recess and failed to return. He was a predicate felon with a prior bench warrant.

    Procedural History

    The trial court initially set aside the jury verdict. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated the guilty verdict. Corley was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but that appeal was dismissed when he absconded. The Court of Appeals later reinstated his appeal, but it was again dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence, and Corley appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the dismissal of defendant’s prior appeal for failure to prosecute bars his subsequent appeal of the same issue.

    2. Whether defendant was properly sentenced in absentia where, after reinstatement of his conviction on appeal, he willfully absconded on the day scheduled for his appearance before the Trial Judge.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits of all claims that could have been litigated had the appeal been timely argued or submitted.

    2. Yes, because a defendant forfeits any right to be present at sentencing by absconding to frustrate scheduled proceedings before the Trial Judge in connection with sentencing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits. The court stated, “Once having dismissed an appeal for failure to prosecute, we foster disrespect and indifference toward our rules and orders, encourage laxity and extend the already lengthy litigation process if we simply ignore our own order and proceed to a consideration of the issue tendered by the dismissed appeal.”

    Regarding the sentencing in absentia, the court distinguished this case from People v. Stroman, where the defendant was nearby but not brought back into the courtroom. Here, Corley was aware of the consequences of his actions. He was present initially and then deliberately absented himself to frustrate the sentencing process. The court noted the difference between waiver (knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision) and forfeiture (occurs by operation of law, based on objective facts). The court quoted People v. Sanchez, stating that a defendant can lose the right to be present as a matter of public policy when the evidence unambiguously indicates “a defiance of the processes of law sufficient to effect a forfeiture”.