People v. Russell
| Decision Date | 07 May 1992 |
| Parties | , 594 N.E.2d 922 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Saul RUSSELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err as a matter of law in allowing four lay witnesses--defendant's roommate, his roommate's mother, his landlord, and a friend--who did not witness the bank robbery, to identify the defendant as the person depicted as the robber in two bank surveillance photographs (see, People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343, 348, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435). Their testimony was clearly relevant inasmuch as the robber's identity was the central issue in the case and the People presented ample proof that defendant had changed his appearance immediately after the crime by having his beard shaved.
Nor did the testimony of the four noneyewitnesses constitute improper bolstering or an improper opinion about an ultimate fact. The challenged testimony did not concern a previous extrajudicial identification of defendant (see, People v. Bonnet, 134 A.D.2d 436, 437, 521 N.Y.S.2d 59, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 953, 525 N.Y.S.2d 836, 520 N.E.2d 554) or of the photographs of defendant (see, People v. Lindsay, 42 N.Y.2d 9, 12, 396 N.Y.S.2d 610, 364 N.E.2d 1302). Rather, given the personal knowledge these witnesses had of defendant's appearance as of the time when the photographs were taken, their testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the bank photographs was indeed the defendant, a task made more onerous by defendant's altering his appearance after commission of the crime (see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280, 282 [4th Cir.1986]; United States v. Farnsworth, 729 F.2d 1158, 1160 [8th Cir.1984].
Also unavailing are defendant's arguments that the four noneyewitnesses' photograph identifications should have been excluded because they were unduly cumulative and duplicative of the bank tellers' eyewitness testimony. No objection having been registered as to the number of witnesses presented, this issue was not preserved for review (CPL 470.05[2]. Beyond that, the bank tellers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanchez
...familiarity with the defendant within a time frame reasonably connected with the date of the crime)"), aff'd, 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428, 594 N.E.2d 922 (1992).4 We do not agree with the Sixth Circuit's rejection of sanitized law enforcement lay opinion identification testimony in Cal......
-
State v. Gore
...decision to allow lay witness opinion testimony identifying a defendant in surveillance photographs. People v. Russell , 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025, 594 N.E.2d 922, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992).11 In this appeal, we address the effect of the rule change we announce today on the admissibility of lay op......
-
People v. Harlow
...quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Russell , 165 A.D.2d 327, 333, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2d Dept. 1991], affd 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428, 594 N.E.2d 922 [1992] ). Here, "there was no basis for concluding that the [officer] was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether .......
-
People v. Hubsher
..., 18 N.Y.3d 16, 24, 935 N.Y.S.2d 567, 959 N.E.2d 504 ; People v. Russell , 165 A.D.2d 327, 332, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428, 594 N.E.2d 922 ; see generally People v. Nieves , 67 N.Y.2d 125, 131, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1, 492 N.E.2d 109 ) and relevant (see People v. Alvarez......
-
Expert witnesses
...New York , 214 A.D.2d 461, 625 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept. 1995); People v. Russell, 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1991), aff ’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992). Lay witnesses are thus precluded from drawing conclusions or offering opinions with respect to “ultimate issues”......
-
Witness examination
...New York , 214 A.D.2d 461, 625 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept. 1995); People v. Russell , 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1991), aff’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992). Unlike expert witnesses, lay witnesses are precluded from drawing conclusions or offering opinions, particularly......
-
Expert witnesses
...New York , 214 A.D.2d 461, 625 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept. 1995); People v. Russell, 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1991), af ’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992). Lay witnesses are thus precluded from drawing conclusions or ofering opinions with respect to “ultimate issues” i......
-
Expert witnesses
...New York , 214 A.D.2d 461, 625 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept. 1995); People v. Russell, 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1991), af ’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992). Lay witnesses are thus precluded from drawing conclusions or ofering opinions with respect to “ultimate issues” i......