People v. Cassese
| Decision Date | 08 November 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Anthony CASSESE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Denis Dillon, District Attorney of Nassau County, Mineola (Thomas Bruno, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Dennis J. Sweeney, Melville, for defendant.
This case involves a burglary of a residence in which the burglar was observed by the victim at the scene. The witness of this burglary has significant artistic training, and during the course of the investigation met with detectives of the Nassau County Police Department. Upon meeting those detectives, the witness indicated a willingness and desire to prepare a pictorial description of the person she saw at the time of the burglary. As a result two drawings were prepared by the victim showing pictorial representation of the burglar, which pictures were turned over to police detectives. The question presented in this proceeding is whether the People will be allowed to introduce these two drawings as evidence in their case in chief.
After reviewing the applicable case law in this area, it would appear that the case of People v. Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487, 554 N.Y.S.2d 444, 553 N.E.2d 992 (1990) would be controlling. In Huertas, identification was the primary contested issue. The same is true in this matter.
In the Huertas case, the question was whether a verbal description, on the basis of recollection alone, close to the time of the crime can assist the jury in evaluating the degree to which a physical identification may or may not have been the product of intervening memory failure or suggestion. On those facts the Court of Appeals found that such testimony was admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of assisting the jury in evaluating the victim's opportunity to observe at the time of the crime and the reliability of her memory when she later identified the defendant.
Defense counsel has cited cases to support his position including People v. Griffin, 29 N.Y.2d 91, 323 N.Y.S.2d 964, 272 N.E.2d 477 (1971) and People v. Jennings, 23 A.D.2d 621, 257 N.Y.S.2d 456 (4th Dept., 1965). Both of these cases involve reversals on the ground that testimony regarding composite pictures or sketches prepared by police in cooperation with civilian witnesses are not admissible. It is this Court's determination, after reviewing these cases in the context of the applicable case law, that both the Griffin and Jennings decisions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial