46 N.Y.2d 758 (1978)

An appellate court’s error in upholding the denial of a pretrial suppression motion regarding identification testimony can be deemed harmless if the issue of identity was not contested at trial and the defense strategy was not affected by the denial.

Summary

Travison was convicted of sexual assault. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the complainant’s in-court identification, arguing that pretrial photo and lineup procedures were unduly suggestive. The suppression court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that even if the pretrial procedures were illegal, the complainant had an independent source for her identification. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding any error in the Appellate Division’s disposition of the suppression issue harmless, as identity was not an issue at trial. Travison conceded he was with the complainant, but offered a different version of events. The court emphasized that the defense strategy was not impacted by the denial of the suppression motion.

Facts

The defendant, Travison, was accused of sexual assault. Before trial, the defense challenged the admissibility of the complainant’s in-court identification, arguing it was tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial photo identification and lineup procedures. At trial, Travison admitted to spending considerable time with the complainant but presented a different account of their interaction, effectively conceding his presence at the scene but disputing the nature of the encounter.

Procedural History

The trial court denied Travison’s motion to suppress the in-court identification. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, offering an alternative rationale: even assuming the pretrial identification procedures were improper, the complainant had an independent source for her identification. Travison appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing the Appellate Division erred in relying on independent source when that evidence was only presented at trial, not at the suppression hearing.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division’s error in upholding the denial of a pretrial suppression motion regarding in-court identification testimony, based on an “independent source” argument not presented at the suppression hearing, can be considered harmless error when the defendant conceded being with the complainant and the defense strategy was not affected by the suppression ruling.

Holding

Yes, because at trial, the question of identity was not put in issue by the defendant. He conceded that he had spent an extended time with the complainant, but offered an entirely different description of what had occurred during their encounter. Therefore, any error in the disposition of the suppression issue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that any error made by the Appellate Division in addressing the suppression motion was harmless. The court highlighted that the core issue at trial was not the identity of the perpetrator, as Travison admitted being with the complainant. Instead, the defense focused on contesting the complainant’s version of the events, presenting an alternative narrative. The court emphasized that the defense strategy was not altered or influenced by the denial of the suppression motion. Because the defendant admitted he was with the complainant, the validity of the in-court identification was not material to the outcome of the trial. The court stated, “In this circumstance, when there is no suggestion that defense strategy on the trial was in any way affected by the denial of suppression, appellant may not now be heard to complain of errors with respect to the denial of his motion to suppress the complainant’s in-court identification testimony.”