From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress the identification testimony of the witness Totillo is granted, and a new trial is ordered.

Following a pretrial Wade hearing, the hearing court (Feldman, J.) precluded both out-of-court and in-court identification testimony by the complainant Gredder because the People had failed to serve a CPL 710.30 notice regarding Gredder's initial identification of the defendant at the time of his arrest. As the People did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to warrant the trial court overruling a determination made by the hearing court, Gredder's in-court identification should have been excluded, along with his original out-of-court identification of the defendant (see, e.g., People v. Johnson, 148 A.D.2d 304; People v. Finley, 104 A.D.2d 450; see also, People v. Bernier, 141 A.D.2d 750, affd 73 N.Y.2d 1006). This is so notwithstanding the existence of an independent basis for Gredder's identification (People v. Bernier, supra, at 754; CPL 710.30).

In addition, the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress testimony by the eyewitness Totillo based upon a precinct showup that was inherently suggestive. The defendant, a black man, was displayed seated in a chair, while one or more white detectives stood around him. Not only was this showup not excused by any exigent circumstances, but the defendant had already been identified as the perpetrator, so that no immediate identification was necessary; and the People failed to carry their heavy burden of showing what steps they took to ensure that the identification was free of suggestiveness and exploitation (see, e.g., People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v Gildersleeve, 143 A.D.2d 361; People v. Liano, 142 A.D.2d 602; People v. Lorick, 142 A.D.2d 501; People v. Guillermo, 137 A.D.2d 832; People v. Brown, 121 A.D.2d 733). Lawrence, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY BARRETT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 734

Citing Cases

People v. Searles

The defendant claims that the station house showup was suggestive. Assuming arguendo that the defendant's…

People v. Johnson

The witnesses, who had already been interviewed at the precinct and returned to their place of business, were…