People v. Lancaster

• Decision Date: 14 November 2018
• Docket Number: 2017–01200,Ind.No.787/15
• Citation: 166 A.D.3d 807,87 N.Y.S.3d 232
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Herman LANCASTER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 807
87 N.Y.S.3d 232

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Herman LANCASTER, Appellant.

2017–01200
Ind.No.787/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—June 14, 2018
November 14, 2018

Hegge & Confusione, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Michael Confusione of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The charges against the defendant arose from a shooting at a store in Brooklyn which resulted in the death of the victim. The shooting, which was captured on several

87 N.Y.S.3d 234

surveillance cameras located inside and outside the store, showed an individual wearing a black jacket, a hat with a pompom, and a red scarf fire a gun several times at the victim as the victim fled from the store. The defendant and another individual were stopped by the police near the scene of the crime shortly after it occurred and taken into custody. At a showup identification conducted shortly thereafter, an employee of the store who witnessed the shooting identified the defendant as the perpetrator.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence. "Showup procedures, although generally disfavored, are permissible where employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification" ( People v. Castro , 149 A.D.3d 862, 863, 52 N.Y.S.3d 385 ; see People v. Huerta , 141 A.D.3d 602, 602, 35 N.Y.S.3d 433 ). Here, the showup procedure took place approximately 30 minutes after the shooting and one block away from the crime scene. The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of undue suggestiveness in the showup identification through the testimony of the detective who brought the witness to the showup location, and through the testimony of the police officer who apprehended the defendant (see People v. Slattery , 147 A.D.3d 788, 790, 46 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; People v. Bartlett , 137 A.D.3d 806, 806, 27 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; People v. Mack , 135 A.D.3d 962, 963, 24 N.Y.S.3d 381 ; People v. Jerry , 126 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 4 N.Y.S.3d 317 ; People v. Ervin , 118 A.D.3d 910, 911, 987 N.Y.S.2d 454 ; People v. Sain , 111 A.D.3d 964, 965–966, 976 N.Y.S.2d 107 ; People v. Calero , 105 A.D.3d 864, 865, 962 N.Y.S.2d 665 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identification was not rendered unduly suggestive because he was handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed police officers and police cars (see People v. Slattery , 147 A.D.3d at 790, 46 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; People v. Williams , 143 A.D.3d 847, 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Bartlett , 137 A.D.3d at 806, 27 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; People v. Ward , 116 A.D.3d 989, 991, 984 N.Y.S.2d 123 ).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of those crimes is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v....