83 N.Y.2d 406 (1994)

A Wade hearing is required when there is a significant lapse of time between an undercover officer’s initial encounter with a suspect and a subsequent identification, or when the circumstances surrounding the identification suggest a risk of misidentification, even if the identification is labeled “confirmatory.”

Summary

The defendant was convicted of selling drugs based on an undercover officer’s identification. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the identification testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a Wade hearing was necessary due to the time lapse between the initial drug transaction and the subsequent identification, as well as the circumstances surrounding the identification. The court emphasized that a “confirmatory” identification does not automatically obviate the need for a Wade hearing and that a case-by-case analysis is required.

Facts

An undercover officer purchased drugs from the defendant on July 12, 1989. The officer mistakenly recorded the address of the transaction. A search warrant was issued based on this incorrect information, leading to the wrongful arrest of a family. On August 7, 1989, the undercover officer returned to the correct address and purchased drugs again. He saw the defendant standing outside the building, had a brief conversation with him, and then arrested him for the July 12 transaction. The undercover officer viewed the defendant again, handcuffed, outside the building and at the police station.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a Wade hearing to suppress the identification testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for a Wade hearing.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a Wade hearing, given the time lapse between the drug transaction and the identification, the officer’s initial mistake regarding the address, and the circumstances of the subsequent viewings of the defendant.

Holding

Yes, because the time lapse between the initial encounter and the subsequent identification, combined with the circumstances of the identification, created a significant risk of misidentification, necessitating a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the identification testimony.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the identification in this case did not meet the criteria for a “confirmatory” identification that would obviate the need for a Wade hearing. The court emphasized that a significant time lapse between the initial encounter and the identification, as seen in People v. Newball, raises concerns about the reliability of the identification. The court distinguished this case from People v. Wharton, where the identification was considered an ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure because the viewing by the officer occurred at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest. Here, the 26-day gap, the officer’s mistake about the address, and the suggestiveness of viewing the defendant in handcuffs all pointed to the need for a Wade hearing. The court stated, “(c)omprehensive analysis, not superficial categorization, ultimately governs.” The Court noted that testimony regarding the August 7th identification was only permissible if it directly related back to the original transaction of July 12th and that showup evidence should be avoided and subjected to Wade hearings to safeguard accuracy.