People v. Cicero, 78 N.Y.2d 1020, 572 N.E.2d 986 (1991)

A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at a Wade hearing to challenge an identification procedure unless there is some indication of suggestiveness in the procedure itself.

Summary

Cicero was convicted of a crime, and on appeal, argued that he should have been allowed to call the complainant as a witness at his Wade hearing, which was convened to determine if the pre-trial identification procedure was unduly suggestive. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that a defendant only has the right to call a complainant at a Wade hearing if there is some indication that the identification procedure was suggestive. The Court reasoned that because the showup was conducted promptly at the scene of the crime, and Cicero did not claim the complainant’s testimony would differ from the prosecution’s witnesses, calling the complainant was unnecessary.

Facts

The key fact is that the identification procedure used in this case was a showup that occurred promptly at the scene of the crime. Cicero did not dispute the timeliness or location of the showup. Furthermore, Cicero did not allege that the complainant’s potential testimony would contradict the accounts given by the People’s witnesses regarding the identification.

Procedural History

The case began in a trial court, which ruled against Cicero’s request to call the complainant to testify at the Wade hearing. Cicero was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the denial of his request was an error. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Cicero appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the hearing court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing to challenge the identification procedure.

Holding

No, because the showup was conducted promptly at the scene of the crime, and the defendant did not claim that the complainant’s testimony would differ from the People’s witnesses; thus, there was no indication of suggestiveness requiring the complainant’s testimony.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holdings in People v. Chipp and People v. Love. The Court stated, “A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed.” The court distinguished cases involving inherently suggestive procedures, such as showups, by noting that the suggestiveness is mitigated when the showup is conducted promptly at the scene of the crime. The court emphasized that Cicero had not claimed that the complainant’s testimony would differ from the prosecution’s witnesses. Thus, the Court concluded that requiring the complainant to testify would be unnecessary and would not serve the purpose of the Wade hearing, which is to determine whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive. The court essentially found that in the absence of any evidence suggesting impropriety, the defendant’s request was a fishing expedition. As the court stated, “In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to call the complainant at the hearing.”