53 N.Y.2d 892 (1981)

A trial court may reopen a pretrial Wade hearing only if the defendant demonstrates that they have discovered additional pertinent facts that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the original determination.

Summary

Jesus Fuentes appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his requests to reopen the Wade hearing during trial. He claimed new facts warranted a re-examination of the identification procedures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court emphasized that under CPL 710.40(4), reopening a pretrial hearing requires a showing by the defendant of newly discovered, pertinent facts that could not have been previously discovered with reasonable diligence. Fuentes failed to meet this burden, justifying the trial court’s denial.

Facts

During the trial, the defendant, Jesus Fuentes, sought to reopen a previously held Wade hearing concerning the admissibility of identification evidence. The specific nature of the underlying criminal charges or the identification evidence itself is not detailed in this memorandum opinion, but the defendant argued that new facts had emerged that warranted a re-evaluation of the fairness and reliability of the identification procedures used.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to reopen the Wade hearing during the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request to reopen the Wade hearing during the trial, based on the defendant’s claim of newly discovered facts.

Holding

No, because the defendant failed to demonstrate that the alleged new facts were pertinent and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the initial Wade hearing determination, as required by CPL 710.40(4).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on CPL 710.40(4), which governs the reopening of pretrial hearings. The statute explicitly states that a trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it “is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination” of the pretrial application. The court emphasized that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating both the pertinence of the new facts and the prior inability to discover them with reasonable diligence. Since Fuentes failed to establish these elements, the trial court’s refusal to reopen the Wade hearing was deemed a proper exercise of its discretion. The Court of Appeals found no merit in the defendant’s remaining arguments, reinforcing the affirmance of the lower court’s order. This case highlights the importance of diligently pursuing all relevant facts before a pretrial hearing concludes and underscores the limited circumstances under which a court will allow a reopening of such a hearing during trial. The decision also affirms a trial court’s discretion in managing the presentation of evidence and ensuring the orderly conduct of proceedings.