People v. Boyce

• Decision Date: 26 July 1982
• Citation: 452 N.Y.S.2d 676,89 A.D.2d 623
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Aaron E. BOYCE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 676

452 N.Y.S.2d 676

89 A.D.2d 623

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Aaron E. BOYCE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 26, 1982.

John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Hauppauge (Anna M. Perry, Stony Brook, of counsel), for appellant.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Donald O'Brien, Asst. Dist. Atty., Hauppauge, of counsel), for respondent.

Before DAMIANI, J. P., and TITONE, WEINSTEIN and BRACKEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 12, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion to suppress granted, guilty plea vacated, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Under the circumstances, Criminal Term erred in finding that the complainant could make an in-court identification of defendant, despite a possibly defective lineup, on the ground that the complainant's opportunity to observe the robbery gave the identification an independent source (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140). Thus, defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony should have been granted.

Early in the morning of May 27, 1979 complainant, the night clerk at the Smithtown Motor Lodge, was robbed at gunpoint by three men, one of whom was armed. Although he was able to give a description of the gunman so that a composite sketch could be drawn, he could only give a general description of the other two.

In September, 1979 the clerk was shown a number of photographs of suspects and narrowed down the photospread to two, including one of the defendant. However, he could not make any identification and could not say that either of the men in the photographs had actually been involved.

In November of 1979 the clerk was taken to Morristown, New Jersey by the detective and the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, to view a lineup in which defendant was a participant. There were six men seated in the lineup, all holding number cards. Although at the Wade hearing the clerk testified that he was not given any instructions, he admitted that he was told by the New Jersey investigator in charge of the lineup to "write down the number" of the person he recognized. This testimony was supported by other witnesses. When asked by the court what he meant by "the number", the clerk stated, "Well, the individuals in the room had numbers". After viewing the first lineup, the clerk wrote down the number "4", indicating a person other than defendant.

After a 10-minute interval, in which the numbers and the participants were shuffled around, a second lineup was conducted. On this second viewing, the participants, one at a time, stood and walked towards the viewing window. Following this lineup, the clerk wrote down the number "5". The same man who held the number card "4" in the first lineup held the number card "5" in the second lineup. He was a deputy sheriff, and not the defendant. The New Jersey officials, the Suffolk County detective, the Assistant District Attorney, and defendant's attorney all agreed that there had been no identification.

On the return trip to Suffolk County the clerk was told that he had failed to select the suspect. After expressing his disbelief, he then explained that he had indicated the man "positionwise", that is, as the fourth person counting left to right in the first lineup and as the fifth person counting right to left in the order in which they had approached the window in the second lineup. He additionally stated that the man had been wearing a turtleneck shirt, which, in fact, defendant had been wearing. Defendant's attorney was told of this "identification" the following week.

At the Wade hearing, the clerk stated that he had been "slightly confused" during the lineups; however, he never indicated what had confused him, nor did he ever ask for clarification or instructions. Despite the fact that the numbers he wrote were not the same as those defendant had...