People v. Lane

• Decision Date: 14 April 1993
• Citation: 598 N.Y.S.2d 746,192 A.D.2d 1135
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard E. LANE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 746

598 N.Y.S.2d 746

192 A.D.2d 1135

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard E. LANE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April 14, 1993

Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse, for appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick by Victoria Anthony, Syracuse, for respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant contends that the lineup identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive because three of the witnesses to one of the robberies waited together for the lineup. The record fails to support that contention. All three witnesses unequivocally testified that they did not discuss the description of the robber prior to the lineup (see, People v. Flowers, 150 A.D.2d 721, 541 N.Y.S.2d 591, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 809, 546 N.Y.S.2d 567, 545 N.E.2d 881; People v. Morales, 134 A.D.2d 292, 520 N.Y.S.2d 618, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 935, 524 N.Y.S.2d 686, 519 N.E.2d 632). Absent a showing of impermissible suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure, the People had no burden of demonstrating an independent source for the witnesses' in-court identifications (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70). The fact that three of the five eyewitnesses changed their initial identifications of the robber goes to the weight of their testimony, not its admissibility (see, People v. Smedman, 184 A.D.2d 600, 605, 584 N.Y.S.2d 627; People v. Broadwater, 105 A.D.2d 1065, 482 N.Y.S.2d 633). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.--Robbery, 1st Degree.)

GREEN, J.P., and PINE, BOOMER, DAVIS and BOEHM, JJ., concur.