People v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 27 December 1984 |
| Parties | , 475 N.E.2d 443 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 102 A.D.2d 1017, 476 N.Y.S.2d 230, should be affirmed.
Defendant has been convicted of grand larceny in the third degree. He appeals from an order affirming the judgment of conviction bringing up for review an order denying suppression of pretrial identifications in addition to the trial court's alleged error in denying his motion to exhibit his tattooed hands in evidence.
On September 2, 1981, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Joann Blaha was walking along Broadway with a companion when she noticed a man running toward her. The man was heavyset and of average height and he sported a red afro haircut and a full red beard. As the man came along side Blaha he ripped a gold chain off her neck. The victim immediately gave chase for several blocks. After turning onto a side street, the man slowed his pace and Blaha was able to approach him from behind. Blaha began to curse the thief, who turned and faced her directly before resuming his flight. A male passerby joined in the renewed pursuit, yet the thief managed to hail a taxi and escape.
On September 8, 1981, Blaha was introduced to Police Officer Daniel Murphy. In their conversation, Blaha told the officer of her recent experience and she described the chain snatcher. Officer Murphy told her that he had recently arrested a chain snatcher who fit her assailant's description. Subsequently, Officer Murphy telephoned Blaha and requested that she come to the station to examine some photographs. He informed her that a suspect would be among those in the photo array. Blaha was shown six black and white photographs that had been converted from color shots. She chose defendant's photo from among the group within 20 seconds. Officer Murphy thereupon showed Blaha the original color shot of defendant, which she also identified as the chain snatcher. Two months later, Blaha returned to the station to observe a lineup of six persons, including, she was informed, the person whom she had chosen from the photo array. She identified defendant as the thief despite the fact that he had shortened and lightened his hair, shaved his beard and lost weight in the interim.
Following a Wade hearing, the hearing court denied defendant's motion to suppress the pretrial identifications as well as the victim's prospective in-court identification of defendant. Although noting several improprieties by Officer Murphy--telling the victim that he had a suspect, showing her a color photograph of defendant after she had chosen him from the black and white array and telling her that the person she had chosen would be in the subsequent lineup--the court found that those improprieties tainted neither the pretrial identifications nor the prospective in-court identification and that the identifications were based on the victim's independent recollection of defendant from the theft and chase.
At trial, the victim recounted her lineup identification, noting the significant changes in defendant's appearance. She also recognized a photograph of defendant that had been taken four days after the theft. Neither the victim's companion at the time of the theft nor the passerby who assisted her in the chase was able to identify defendant at trial.
The Trial Judge denied a motion by defense counsel to introduce into evidence defendant's hands, which were tattooed. The motion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
...individual had been taken into custody, or to ask the victim if the defendant was the person who had robbed her (see People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443 ; People v. Bartlett, 137 A.D.3d 806, 807, 27 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; Matter of Madeline D., 125 A.D.3d 965, ......
-
People v. Chipp
...50 N.Y.2d 937, 431 N.Y.S.2d 453, 409 N.E.2d 927, affg. 67 A.D.2d 122, 414 N.Y.S.2d 712; see also, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443.) Contrary to defendant's contention, the hearing evidence does not establish, prima facie, that the lineup was und......
-
People v. Lawal
...whom police believed to be the suspect was insufficient to contaminate the identification ( see 900 N.Y.S.2d 518People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740, 485 N.Y.S.2d 976, 475 N.E.2d 443 [1984]; see also People v. Buxton, 189 A.D.2d 996, 997, 593 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1993], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1011......
-
Stewart v. Lee
...contaminated' by a remark that a suspect is in custody or that a suspect will appear in the lineup" (quoting People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-41, 475 N.E.2d 443 (1984))). Set against this appeal to doubt, of course, the fact remains that Chandola's description of the suspect accurate......