From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1988
138 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 7, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecution's failure to preserve the photographic array from which the complaining witnesses identified the defendant did not render the identification impermissibly suggestive where the array contained some 50 photos which had not been compiled specifically for this case. Ordinarily, it is incumbent upon the People to preserve a photo array so that a court may determine whether the procedure employed was unduly suggestive (see, People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Barber, 96 A.D.2d 1112; People v. Foti, 83 A.D.2d 641). However, it is by now well established that when a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the "sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness" (People v. Jerome, supra, at 874; see also, People v. Ludwigsen, 128 A.D.2d 810, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1006).

Furthermore, the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the pretrial lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738). There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup must be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance (see, United States v. Reid, 517 F.2d 953; People v. Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801; People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611), and, in the instant case, an examination of the lineup photograph reveals no discernable differences in the age, height, skin tone, or body type of the defendant and 4 of the 5 stand-ins of such a nature as to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification (see, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1988
138 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Mason

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LORENZO MASON…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

The complainants viewed hundreds of photographs. The "`sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates…

People v. Tucker

The Court of Appeals has held that there is no requirement for individual subjects used in an identification…