People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218 (1995)

A defendant is entitled to a Wade hearing when an identification occurs as a result of a police-arranged canvassing procedure, even if the witness spontaneously identifies the defendant.

Summary

Dixon was convicted of robbery based on an out-of-court identification by the victim during a police canvass of the crime scene. The trial court summarily denied Dixon’s motion for a Wade hearing, arguing the identification was spontaneous and not police-arranged. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the canvassing was a police-directed procedure, Dixon was entitled to a Wade hearing to determine if the identification was tainted by police suggestion, regardless of whether the victim’s identification was unprompted.

Facts

Harold Knowings was robbed by a group of men. Transit police drove Knowings through the area near the crime scene in a marked police van to search for the perpetrators. During this “canvass,” Knowings pointed to Dixon on the street and identified him as one of the robbers. Dixon was arrested based on this identification and charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault.

Procedural History

The People notified Dixon about the out-of-court identification. Dixon moved for a Wade hearing, arguing the identification procedure was unfair and created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The People opposed, stating the identification was spontaneous during a canvass, not a police-arranged procedure. The suppression court denied the motion without a hearing. Dixon was convicted of second-degree robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the identification was spontaneous and not police-arranged. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant is entitled to a Wade hearing when an identification results from a police-directed canvassing procedure, even if the witness’s identification is spontaneous.

Holding

Yes, because the canvassing was an identification procedure undertaken at the deliberate direction of the State, and the possibility of police prompting was not foreclosed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals noted that CPL 710.60 requires a hearing unless summary denial is authorized. A suppression motion can be summarily denied if there’s no legal basis for suppression or the factual predicate is insufficient. The Court emphasized that defendants are no longer required to plead specific facts about the identification procedure to be entitled to a Wade hearing. The purpose of a Wade hearing is to test for taint arising from official suggestion during police-arranged confrontations. The Court rejected the argument that a spontaneous identification removes the canvassing from the category of police-sponsored viewings warranting a Wade hearing, distinguishing between witness-initiated procedures and witness-initiated identifications.

“[T]he due process concerns underlying the notice provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law…are implicated whenever ‘identification procedures…come about at the deliberate direction of the State.’” The Court emphasized the canvassing was arranged for the distinct purpose of identifying perpetrators, making it a police-sponsored procedure. The Court reiterated that exceptions to Wade hearings are narrowly confined to confirmatory identifications or when the protagonists are known to one another. It noted that “'[t]he influence of improper suggestion upon identifying witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other factor.’” Without a hearing, the courts could not conclude the identification was free from police suggestion. The case was remitted for a Wade hearing.