New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Edmonson

  • People v. Edmonson, 84 N.Y.2d 950 (1994): Admissibility of Identification Testimony After Suggestive Showup

    People v. Edmonson, 84 N.Y.2d 950 (1994)

    When a witness has participated in a suggestive showup, their subsequent physical description of the perpetrator is inadmissible unless the prosecution proves the description is untainted by the showup, but this error can be deemed harmless if other evidence corroborates the witness’s testimony.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals considered the admissibility of a complainant’s physical description of a robber after a suggestive showup. The complainant, robbed at knifepoint, later identified the defendant at the police station. The trial court suppressed the showup and in-court identifications but allowed the complainant to describe the robber. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that while the physical description should not have been admitted without proof it was untainted by the showup, the error was harmless because other evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony, including her identification of the knife and the cloth wrapped around the robber’s hand.

    Facts

    The complainant was robbed at knifepoint in an elevator.
    A neighbor saw a man resembling the defendant fleeing the building with cloth wrapped around his hand.
    Police stopped the defendant nearby in connection with another crime; he also had cloth wrapped around his hand.
    Complainant’s husband identified the defendant to the police as the robber, leading to a search that revealed the complainant’s jewelry and a knife on the defendant.
    The complainant identified the defendant as the robber at the police station.

    Procedural History

    The trial court suppressed both the showup identification and the in-court identification due to the suggestive nature of the showup and the lack of an independent source for the in-court identification.
    Despite the suppression, the trial court allowed the complainant to provide a physical description of the robber.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the complainant’s physical description of the robber, given after a suggestive showup, was admissible at trial when there was no finding that the description was untainted by the showup.
    Whether the admission of the physical description, if erroneous, constituted harmless error.

    Holding

    No, because there was no finding that such description, given for the first time after the showup, was untainted.
    Yes, because other evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony, rendering the error harmless.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on People v. Moss, 80 NY2d 857, which established that a physical description given after a suggestive showup is inadmissible unless the prosecution demonstrates that the description is untainted by the showup.
    The Court acknowledged that admitting the complainant’s physical description of the robber was an error, stating, “while it was improper for complainant to give a physical description of the robber — there having been no finding that such description, given for the first time after the showup, was untainted”.
    However, the Court applied the harmless error doctrine from People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241, finding that the error did not contribute to the conviction because the complainant’s detailed description and identification of the knife, as well as the fact that cloth was wrapped around her assailant’s hand, were corroborated by other evidence. The Court noted that the complainant testified to details she could not have gleaned from the showup.
    The Court concluded that the properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant’s guilt, rendering the error harmless. Defendant’s version of events (colliding with a lookalike while jogging who dropped the knife and jewelry) was not deemed credible in light of the other evidence.

  • People v. Edmonson, 75 N.Y.2d 672 (1990): Admissibility of Videotape Identification Evidence

    People v. Edmonson, 75 N.Y.2d 672 (1990)

    Evidence of a prior extrajudicial identification made by a witness from a police videotape canvassing a neighborhood is admissible if the tape and its presentation are not suggestive.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a witness’s identification of the defendant from a police-created videotape showing random passersby in a neighborhood was admissible evidence. The court reasoned that because the videotape and its presentation to the witness were not suggestive, there was no risk of misidentification. This case clarifies the circumstances under which videotape identification evidence is permissible, balancing the need for reliable identification with the potential for suggestive procedures to taint the process.

    Facts

    The victim was violently attacked. She had seen her attacker a few times prior to the attack. After the attack, while hospitalized, she described her attacker to the police and suggested possible locations where he could be found. Based on this information, the police videotaped pedestrian traffic in the specified area. The videotape captured numerous people, including the defendant, in closeup shots. The victim viewed the tape at home and immediately identified the defendant as her attacker.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of attempted murder and assault. He moved to suppress the victim’s identification of him from the videotape. The trial court denied the motion, finding the identification procedure not suggestive. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to consider the admissibility of the videotape identification.

    Issue(s)

    Whether evidence of a prior extrajudicial identification made by the complaining witness from a videotape taken by the police, canvassing a particular neighborhood and focusing on numerous passersby, is inadmissible as a matter of law under CPL 60.30.

    Holding

    No, because the videotape procedure employed by the police officers and the subsequent viewing by the victim were neither suggestive nor prejudicial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that suggestive pretrial identifications are generally inadmissible to reduce the risk of misidentification. The Court found that the videotaping procedure in this case was not inherently suggestive. The defendant was not singled out or portrayed unfavorably. At the time of videotaping, the police did not suspect the defendant or have reason to believe the attacker would be captured on camera. The police simply canvassed the area mentioned by the victim, videotaping all pedestrian traffic. While the police took a closeup of the defendant, they did the same for approximately 50 other individuals. The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions where identification procedures were deemed suggestive, such as precinct showups where the defendant was forced to wear similar clothing as the suspect (People v. Ballott, 20 NY2d 600) and showups where suspects were presented in handcuffs (People v. Riley, 70 NY2d 523; People v. Adams, 53 NY2d 241). The Court also noted that a videotape of random pedestrians does not carry the same prejudicial inference as a “rogues’ gallery” of mug shots. The Court quoted People v. Tunstall, 97 AD2d 523, 524, stating that “videotaped lineups avoid the possibility that the credibility of third parties will be used to strengthen a questionable identification”. The Court reasoned that the videotaping procedure was akin to permitting a victim to canvass an area for her attacker. In conclusion, the Court found no abuse of the videotaping procedure and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.