Opinion
July 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
Defendant was stopped by police officers as fitting the description of the driver of a vehicle that was abandoned after an accident, and which, it turned out, was stolen. Defendant was taken to the scene of the accident in handcuffs where the sole eyewitness identified him as the driver of the stolen vehicle. The witness could not identify any of the passengers he had seen flee the vehicle with defendant, and at least one person shown to him at the time of the defendant's identification was released.
Admission of the eyewitness's testimony of the description he gave to police officers when they came upon the accident scene was not improper bolstering of the witness's identification, a description being ordinarily admissible if offered by a person who has previously identified the accused (see, People v Fortunato, 191 A.D.2d 221, citing People v. Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 964). Moreover, such testimony, as well as that of the police officer concerning a radio call of shots fired, was necessary to explain the officers' pursuit and stop of defendant, and to prevent speculation by the jury as to the basis for his detention and arrest (see, People v. Candelario, supra; see also, People v. Steele, 162 A.D.2d 128, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 866). While defendant's showup identification may have been suggestive, shown as he was to the witness after arriving in a police car while handcuffed, the circumstances were not so suggestive as to require a new suppression hearing (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.