Summary
finding that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification because this subject "pertains to matters of common knowledge which are not beyond the ken of lay jurors," making expert testimony unnecessary
Summary of this case from State v. GainesOpinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Seybert, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Based upon the police officers' hearing testimony, the hearing court properly held that the officers had a good faith basis for concluding that the defendant's mother, who owned the house they lived in, had the authority to consent to a search of the defendant's bedroom (see, People v. Velazquez, 140 A.D.2d 179, affd 73 N.Y.2d 815). It is notable that the mother led the officers into the room after signing the consent to search form and assisted them by turning on an additional light (cf., People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 940). Although the defendant himself may not have expressly authorized the search, he had informed the detectives that the stolen property could be found in his room, and voiced no objection to their retrieving the property (see, People v. Miller, 174 A.D.2d 989; cf., People v. Mortimer, 46 A.D.2d 275).
The nine-month period between the complainant's viewing of the admittedly suggestive photographic array and her identification of the defendant in a lineup was sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to attenuate any untoward effects of the earlier identification procedure (see, People v. Allah, 158 A.D.2d 605; People v. Wedgeworth, 156 A.D.2d 529; People v. Smith, 140 A.D.2d 647; People v. Watts, 130 A.D.2d 695).
Finally, the trial court properly precluded testimony by the defendant's psychological expert concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications. As we have previously held, this is not a proper subject for expert testimony, as it pertains to matters of common knowledge which are not beyond the ken of lay jurors (see, People v. Wright, 161 A.D.2d 743; People v. Gibbs, 157 A.D.2d 799; People v. Foulks, 143 A.D.2d 1038; People v. Slack, 131 A.D.2d 610; see also, People v. Knighton, 165 A.D.2d 904). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.