New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Perkins

  • People v. Perkins, 27 N.Y.3d 435 (2016): Suggestiveness of Lineups When Defendant Possesses a Distinctive Feature

    People v. Perkins, 27 N.Y.3d 435 (2016)

    A lineup is unduly suggestive if the defendant has a distinctive feature, such as dreadlocks, that makes him stand out, even if that feature was not mentioned in the witness’s prior description of the perpetrator.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the suggestiveness of a lineup where the defendant was the only participant with dreadlocks, a distinctive feature. The court held that the lineup was unduly suggestive, regardless of whether the witness mentioned the defendant’s dreadlocks in their initial description to the police. The court emphasized that the totality of the circumstances must be considered when assessing the suggestiveness of a lineup. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding that the lower court erred in determining that a lineup was not unduly suggestive just because the witness had not mentioned the distinctive feature in their initial description. This case highlights the importance of conducting fair lineups to avoid suggestive identification procedures that could lead to misidentification.

    Facts

    After being identified as a suspect, the defendant was placed in photo arrays and lineups. In the relevant lineups, the defendant was the only participant with long dreadlocks. Four robbery victims identified the defendant in the lineups. Two of the victims had described the perpetrator as having dreadlocks, while the other two had not. The Supreme Court suppressed the lineup identifications for the two victims who had mentioned dreadlocks and not for the others. The Appellate Division affirmed, focusing on whether the distinctive feature was part of the complainants’ descriptions. All four victims identified the defendant in court, but the defendant was acquitted of the robbery counts with respect to two of the victims and convicted of the counts with respect to the others.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the lineup identifications for two victims but denied it for the others. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted the defendant leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a lineup is unduly suggestive when the defendant possesses a distinctive feature, even if the witness did not mention that feature in their prior description of the perpetrator?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because a lineup’s suggestiveness should be determined by considering all circumstances to determine whether the lineup created a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that a bright-line rule that a distinctive feature only renders a lineup unduly suggestive if it was mentioned in the witness’s prior description would be unworkable and unwise. Instead, the court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the lineup created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The court found the lineup was unduly suggestive as the defendant was the only person with long dreadlocks. The court referenced its prior decision in People v. Chipp, stating that it must consider all circumstances to determine suggestiveness. The court held that there was no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion. The court held that, as a matter of law, a witness’s failure to mention a distinctive feature in his or her initial description is not necessarily the determinative factor in assessing a lineup’s suggestivity. The Court reversed the Appellate Division, ordered that both lineups should have been suppressed, and remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies the standard for determining the suggestiveness of a lineup in New York. Law enforcement must be cautious when conducting lineups and ensure that distinctive features do not make the defendant stand out. Prosecutors must be prepared to establish an independent basis for in-court identifications if a lineup is found to be unduly suggestive. Defense attorneys should challenge lineups where the defendant is the only participant with a distinctive feature, regardless of whether the witness mentioned that feature in their initial description. This case emphasizes that a totality of the circumstances test must be applied. Post-Perkins, courts must consider all factors when assessing the reliability of an identification procedure and not rely solely on the witness’s prior description.

  • 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”.