People v. Price
| Decision Date | 27 June 2017 |
| Citation | 58 N.Y.S.3d 259,29 N.Y.3d 472,80 N.E.3d 1005 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Chris PRICE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
29 N.Y.3d 472
80 N.E.3d 1005
58 N.Y.S.3d 259
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Chris PRICE, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
June 27, 2017.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Anastasia Spanakos, Robert J. Masters, John M. Castellano and Joseph N. Ferdenzi of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STEIN, J.
On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the People proffered a sufficient foundation at trial to authenticate
a photograph—purportedly of defendant holding a firearm and money—that was obtained from an Internet profile page allegedly belonging to defendant. We conclude that the People's proof fell short of establishing the requisite authentication to render the photograph admissible in evidence.
I.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery ( Penal Law §§ 160.15[4] ; 160.10[1] ). At the trial, a witness testified that he was conducting milk deliveries with the victim when he noticed—from his vantage point inside the delivery truck—that someone was holding a gun about a foot away from the chest of the victim, who was standing outside the truck. After exchanging words with the gunman, the victim threw a handful of cash from his pocket to the ground. The gunman's accomplice gathered the money and the two robbers fled. The witness never saw the gunman's face and was unable to identify defendant at trial as either of the perpetrators.
Following this testimony, the People informed the court that they intended to introduce a photograph that was "found on the internet" which purportedly depicted defendant holding a handgun.1 According to the People, the victim would identify the gun in the photograph as the weapon used during the robbery, and a detective would identify defendant as the individual holding the gun in the picture. Defendant objected to the admission of the photograph in evidence, arguing that the People had not proffered a sufficient foundation establishing the authenticity of the photograph as a fair and accurate representation of defendant holding a gun and that the photograph had not been altered. In response, the People contended that the necessary foundation would be established through proof that the photograph was obtained from a publicly available web page that bore an Internet profile associated with defendant's surname and photographs of him. Over defendant's renewed objection to the sufficiency of the proffered authentication, the court ruled that the photograph would be admissible in connection with the proposed testimony.
Thereafter, the victim testified to the circumstances of the robbery, and he identified defendant as the gunman. The victim
described the firearm used in the robbery as a 9 millimeter automatic with a silver rectangular feature on the top of the barrel, but he admitted that he had no prior familiarity with firearms. When shown the portion of the photograph obtained from the website depicting the gun, the victim testified that the gun looked "similar" to the gun used in the robbery, but he could not identify the gun in the photograph as the one held by the robber.
A police detective subsequently testified that she found the photograph in question on the website "BlackPlanet.com." The detective had searched defendant's surname
"Price" and, after scrolling through several pages of results containing approximately 50 Internet profiles—the usernames of which incorporated the term "Price"—the detective saw a public profile that contained several photographs of defendant and had the user name " Price_OneofKind." There was no reference to defendant's full name on the profile page and, while the detective testified that the profile page listed the purported user's age and hometown, she did not testify as to whether any of this information matched defendant's pedigree information. Nor were any of the pages containing this pedigree information introduced to connect defendant to the specific user of this website.
The photograph at issue was posted to the Internet profile page several months before the robbery. The detective testified that the individual in the photograph holding the handgun "look[ed] like" defendant. She explained that she had printed the photograph from the Internet website, and she asserted that the printout was a true and accurate depiction of the photograph she observed on the website. However, the detective admitted that she did not know who took the photograph, when it was taken, where it was taken, or under what circumstances it was taken. Nor did she know whether the photograph had been altered or was a genuine depiction of that which it appeared to depict. Nevertheless, after the photograph was admitted into evidence over defendant's objection, the detective identified defendant as the individual in the picture.
During summations, the People urged the jury to conclude that the photograph was taken from an Internet profile page belonging to defendant, and they emphasized that the victim "recognized" the gun depicted in the photograph as the one held by the gunman. Following deliberations, the jury found defendant guilty of both counts of robbery.
Upon defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that "the People laid a proper foundation for admission of the photograph, it was relevant to the issue of the defendant's identity as the gunman, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect" ( 127 A.D.3d 995, 996, 4 N.Y.S.3d 924 [2d Dept.2015] ). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal ( 25 N.Y.3d 1206, 16 N.Y.S.3d 528, 37 N.E.3d 1171 [2015] ).
II.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the photograph obtained from the Internet because the People failed to sufficiently authenticate it. Defendant contends that the People's authentication proffer was lacking because the victim could not identify the firearm in the image and because the People presented no evidence that the photograph was genuine and had not been altered. The People argue in response that the photograph was sufficiently authenticated by the detective's testimony that the printout was a fair and accurate representation of the image shown on the Internet profile page, combined with the indicia suggesting that the profile belonged to defendant.
"In order for a piece of evidence to be of probative value, there must be proof that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence" ( United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 [2d Cir.1984] ; see 1–4 David M. Epstein et al., New York Evidentiary Foundations § A [2016] ). "Accuracy or authenticity is established by proof that the offered evidence is genuine and that there has been no tampering with it" ( People
v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 399 N.E.2d 1177 [1979] ). We have explained that "[t]he foundation necessary to establish [authenticity] may differ according to the nature of the evidence sought to be admitted" (id. ). For example, mere identification by one familiar with an item of evidence may suffice where the item is distinct or unique (see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 [1977] ; see e.g. People v. Flanigan, 174 N.Y. 356, 368, 66 N.E. 988 [1903] ). Where a party seeks to admit tape recordings, authenticity may often be established by testimony from a participant in the conversation attesting to the fact that the recording is a fair and accurate reproduction of the conversation (see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 [1986] ; People v. Arena, 48 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 425 N.Y.S.2d 60, 401 N.E.2d 183 [1979] ). In addition, testimony establishing a chain of custody may suffice to demonstrate authenticity in other circumstances (see e.g. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d at 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 ;
Amaro v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 30, 35, 386 N.Y.S.2d 19, 351 N.E.2d 665 [1976] ; People v. Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 174, 359 N.Y.S.2d 266, 316 N.E.2d 706 [1974] ; see also People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688...
To continue reading
Request your trial