From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chi Lau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1991
171 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.).


Five days after Chi Wong had been robbed, he identified a picture of defendant from among forty photographs of Asian gang members. At a lineup conducted two days later, and subsequently at trial, Wong identified defendant. At the hearing conducted on his motion to suppress, defendant established that the photograph used by the police had been taken in connection with an earlier arrest and should have been returned to him pursuant to CPL 160.50 (1) (a).

The use of defendant's photograph, in violation of CPL 160.50 (1) (a), did not require suppression of the victim's identification testimony. (People v Gilbert, 136 A.D.2d 562, 563; People v London, 124 A.D.2d 254.) CPL 160.50 (1) (a) was not intended to "immunize" a defendant from investigative use of his photograph. (See, People v Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408.) Moreover, the exclusion of the identification evidence in this case would not vindicate a constitutional protection afforded defendant, as the obligation of the police to return photographs is a matter of legislative grace (People v Anderson, supra, at 411).

Defendant also fails to show, as was his burden (People v DiStefano, 38 N.Y.2d 640, 652), that the photographic array was suggestive. The record does not show that the victim saw the back of defendant's picture, which was labeled with a gang name, or that the victim connected the crime or defendant to any gang. Accordingly, the manner in which defendant's photograph was presented to the victim did not give rise to a likelihood of irreparable misidentification (People v Brown, 20 N.Y.2d 238, 244 [Fuld, Ch. J., concurring]).

Defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. A rational trier of fact could have credited the victim's identification testimony (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), as he had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the robbery.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Chi Lau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1991
171 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Chi Lau

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHI LAU, Also Known as…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

People v. Encarnacion

Use of the testimony, even if a violation of CPL 160.50, does not invalidate the instant conviction. Any…

People v. Del Gizzo

In a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People have the initial burden of going forward to show the…