From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Archie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 24, 1994

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Where a witness and a defendant are known to each other, the identification is confirmatory and there is no issue of suggestive or misleading identification within the purview of CPL 710.30 (see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 449-450; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543). Here, given that the complainant told the police immediately following the robbery that he knew the defendant from the neighborhood, gave a description that closely matched the defendant's actual appearance, and indicated that he and the defendant had a mutual acquaintance, the trial court properly found that the People met their burden of showing that the subsequent identification was merely confirmatory. Significantly, the trial court permitted the defendant an opportunity to examine the complainant outside the presence of the jury as to the witness's prior knowledge of the defendant and to explore the suggestiveness of the pretrial identification (see, People v. Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799, 800-801; People v Addison, 174 A.D.2d 627, 629; People v. Brin, 190 A.D.2d 512; People v. Vargas, 118 Misc.2d 477, 480-485).

Furthermore, the trial court properly admitted evidence that the defendant and an unidentified perpetrator committed another robbery minutes after the charged crimes as being relevant to the issue of identity (see generally, People v Robinson, 68 N.Y.2d 541; cf. People v. Maddox, 138 A.D.2d 749). The defendant's contention that the trial court's limiting instruction was inadequate is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996, 998; People v. Silva, 187 A.D.2d 467, 468) and in any event, is without merit.

Any error in the trial court's modified Dawson charge (see, People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311) was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Ayala, 75 N.Y.2d 422; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Archie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Archie

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DERRICK ARCHIE…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 55

Citing Cases

Simons v. State

Courts generally hold that when an eyewitness tells an officer shortly after the crime that he or she knows…

People v. Spaulding

The report of an identified citizen with firsthand knowledge of criminal activity supports a finding of…