People v. Herner
| Decision Date | 23 March 1995 |
| Citation | 626 N.Y.S.2d 54,649 N.E.2d 1198,85 N.Y.2d 877 |
| Parties | , 649 N.E.2d 1198 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William A. HERNER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with robbery in the first and second degrees based on allegations that he, acting in concert with another, forcibly stole property from Shar's Petland Store in Ontario, New York. Pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(b), the People gave notice to the defendant that they intended to offer evidence of a previous lineup identification of the defendant by the complainant. Following a Wade hearing, County Court determined that the complainant would be permitted to identify the defendant at the time of trial as the one who committed the robbery and would also be permitted to give testimony regarding the identification of defendant in a lineup (see, CPL 60.30). The court determined that there was nothing impermissibly suggestive about the lineup procedure.
Prior to trial the prosecutor was preparing the victim for her trial testimony and permitted her to view a photograph of the lineup where she had previously identified defendant and asked her if she remembered the lineup. The victim indicated that she did and preparations continued. The victim again viewed the photograph the morning of her trial testimony. During the trial, it was learned that the complainant was shown a photo of the lineup the night before her trial testimony. The court then allowed defendant to have a hearing outside the presence of the jury at which complainant was questioned relative to the manner in which the photo was shown to her and whether there was any suggestibility. Following the hearing, the court denied defendant's oral motion to suppress identification testimony based on a failure to give notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. Subsequently, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.
The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that showing the earlier lineup photograph to the complainant before her trial testimony was preparatory, requiring no notice under CPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marshall
...Project, Inc., amicus curiae.OPINION OF THE COURTRIVERA, J.Defendant claims that the trial court, relying on People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877, 626 N.Y.S.2d 54, 649 N.E.2d 1198 (1995), and affirmed by the Appellate Term, improperly denied her request for a Wade hearing to determine the sugges......
-
People v. Marshall
...Inc., amicus curiae. OPINION OF THE COURTRIVERA, J. Defendant claims that the trial court, relying on People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877, 626 N.Y.S.2d 54, 649 N.E.2d 1198 (1995), and affirmed by the Appellate Term, improperly denied her request for a Wade hearing to determine the suggestivenes......
-
People v. Bulgin
...for the instant hearings and upcoming trial, and it was permissible to use exhibits while doing so. People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877, 879, 626 N.Y.S.2d 54, 649 N.E.2d 1198 (1995) (conviction affirmed; prosecutor's showing of photograph of lineup to victim the night before and the morning of ......
- Kielhurn v. Giammarinaro
-
7.35 - 7. Summary Denial Of The Motion To Suppress
...Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341 (1979).[1357] . People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 434 N.Y.S.2d 978 (1980).[1358] . People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877, 626 N.Y.S.2d 54...
-
8.2 - B. Notice To Defendant Of Intention To Offer Evidence
...84 N.Y.2d 584, 620 N.Y.S.2d 754 (1994).[1411] . People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289, 624 N.Y.S.2d 95 (1995).[1412] . People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877, 626 N.Y.S.2d 54 (1995).[1413] . People v. Chase, 85 N.Y.2d 493, 626 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1995) (“Spontaneous declaration” should have been precluded in ......