Opinion
November 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
At trial, the victim of the crime, when asked whether he had seen defendant prior to identifying him at a lineup, stated that he had seen defendant "in a picture". This testimony was error because it could have caused the jury to infer that the victim had previously identified defendant in a photograph and that defendant, who did not testify at trial, had a criminal record (see, People v Griffin, 29 N.Y.2d 91; People v Caserta, 19 N.Y.2d 18). This error was harmless, however, because proof of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. The identification testimony was very strong (see, People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584). The victim observed defendant at distances of less than six feet on two separate occasions, one of which included a conversation which lasted for a minute and a half during which time the complainant was looking at defendant's face. Accordingly, we affirm. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.