People v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 18 December 2003
• Docket Number: 12607.
• Citation: People v. Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 770 NYS2d 144, 2003 NY Slip Op 19581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EBIN A. COLEMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2 A.D.3d 1045

770 N.Y.S.2d 144

2003 NY Slip Op 19581

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EBIN A. COLEMAN, Appellant.

12607.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

December 18, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Ryan, J.), rendered December 15, 2000, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Kane, J.

This Court previously withheld decision on this matter and remitted for County Court to hold a postjudgment Wade hearing to determine whether any police suggestiveness tainted the pretrial identification procedure (306 AD2d 549 [2003]). Now that the hearing has been held, we determine that the court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.

At the postjudgment hearing, a detective testified regarding his assembly of the photo array and conducting of the identification process with the confidential informant. The detective arranged six Polaroid photographs, each a straight-on frontal view of the subject's head and shoulders. The photographs' subjects, including defendant and five fillers, were similar in gender, age and physical characteristics, such as weight, hair style, lack of facial hair, race and skin tone. The detective testified that he read instructions for the identification process to the informant from a printed form, which was admitted into evidence. No suggestions were made, either verbally or through body language, regarding which photo she should choose. She was not shown the photos prior to the procedure, nor was she shown the names of the individuals in the photos. The informant immediately identified defendant's photo as representing the person from whom she purchased crack cocaine at the end of October 1999. The informant's testimony confirmed the detective's version of events. County Court (Catena, J.) determined that the identification procedure was reasonable and not unduly suggestive, requiring denial of defendant's motion to suppress the informant's identification.

Although the original photo array was misplaced, a photocopy of the array was admitted at the hearing. That photocopy, along with the testimony concerning the array, provided a sufficient basis to overcome any inference that the array was invalid and to establish that the procedure was not suggestive (see People v Young, 261 AD2d 109 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1007 [1999]; People v Cordilione, 159 AD2d 864, 866 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 786 [1990]). "[T]he People met their initial burden regarding the reasonableness of their conduct and the lack of suggestiveness in the compilation of the photo array" and "defendant failed to establish that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive" (People v Conway, 274 AD2d 663, 664 [2000]). Therefore, defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied.

The jury's verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence. Despite defendant's attacks on the confidential informant as a "crackhead" who made a deal with the People in exchange for her testimony, credibility determinations are reserved for the jury (see People v Walts, 267 AD2d 617, 620 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d...