People v. Stephens
| Citation | 143 A.D.2d 692,532 N.Y.S.2d 928 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Navarro STEPHENS and Olin Stephens, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Marc Resnick, of counsel; Ivan Vogel, on the brief), for appellant.
Anthony Napolitano, New York City, for respondents.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, BRACKEN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), dated March 20, 1986, which granted that branch of the defendants' omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification testimony.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, that branch of the defendants' omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony by the complainant is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.
The defendants were indicted on charges of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree as a result of an incident that occurred on June 15, 1985, in which they allegedly stole a medallion from the complainant. The defendants were arrested on June 20, 1985, placed in separate lineups and identified by the complainant. Following a Wade hearing, the hearing court granted the defendants' motion to suppress the complainant's identification testimony. The People appeal from the order granting suppression.
At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Steele testified that on June 15, 1985, he interviewed the complainant who stated that he was at a party earlier that day and was approached by two men who stole a medallion he had been wearing around his neck. The complainant stated that he knew one of his attackers as Andre Stephens. The second man was allegedly Andre's brother, the defendant Navarro Stephens, whose nickname was "Frog". The complainant followed the two men into the street; however, he stopped his pursuit when one of the men displayed a gun.
The complainant provided the officer with a Brooklyn address where he believed the robbers resided. On June 18, 1985, Sergeant Steele visited the defendants' home and spoke with their mother. The officer requested that she have the defendants contact him at the precinct when they returned home. On the evening of June 20, 1985, the defendants, accompanied by their mother and a cousin, came to the precinct. The defendants spoke with Sergeant Steele and were informed that they would be placed in lineups.
At that time, Sergeant Steele telephoned the complainant's home and arranged to have the complainant come down to the precinct. The officer did not remember whether the complainant's mother accompanied the complainant to the precinct that evening. Although the officer did recall that the defendants' mother and the complainant's mother did speak about the robbery at some point, the officer did not remember whether that meeting occurred on the evening that the lineups were conducted.
The officer then arranged two separate lineups for each of the defendants using fillers from the neighborhood. Since the defendant Navarro Stephens had braided hair, Sergeant Steele arranged to have the fillers in that lineup wear hats to cover their hair. After viewing the two lineups, the complainant identified the defendants as the men who stole his medallion.
The defendants' mother, Isalee Stephens, testified on behalf of the defendants, and stated that sometime after she arrived at the precinct on the evening of June 20, 1985, Sergeant Steele introduced her to the complainant's mother in the presence of the defendants. At the officer's suggestion, the two women spoke privately in an attempt to resolve the matter. However, after their discussion, the complainant's mother stated that she wanted to "leave [the matter] up to the officer". Ms. Stephens then returned to the room with her sons.
Ms. Stephens also testified that the defendant Olin Stephens' full name is Olin Andre Stephens and that his brother's nickname is "Frog".
The defendant Olin Stephens testified that shortly after he arrived at the precinct on the evening in question with his brother, mother and cousin, Sergeant Steele telephoned the complainant's mother and told her, "I have the two guys down here that robbed your son" and requested that she have the complainant come down to the precinct. Sometime thereafter, the complainant's mother was escorted into the room where the defendants were seated and Sergeant Steele introduced her to Ms. Stephens by stating, "This is their mother, the mother of the two guys that robbed your son". Olin Stephens stated that his cousin then asked the officer, "If that is the mother of the guy that is complaining about us robbing him for his chain, how can she see us, if he [sic ] is going to be in a lineup, when she can go downstairs and tell what I [sic ] had on". The officer did not respond.
On cross-examination, the defendant Olin Stephens stated that he did not know the complainant nor did he see him on the evening of June 20, 1985.
The hearing court concluded that the identification procedures utilized by the police herein were tainted because the complainant's mother was permitted to observe the defendants immediately prior to the lineups and thereby created the "possibility" that she told her son what the defendants were wearing before he viewed the lineups. The hearing court also indicated that the defendant Navarro Stephens' lineup was suggestive because he was the only participant with braided hair. The court therefore determined that, given the absence of sufficient evidence to establish an independent basis for the complainant's identification of the defendants, his identification testimony should be suppressed. We disagree and, accordingly, reverse.
It is well established that on a motion to suppress eyewitness identification testimony, the People bear the initial burden of coming forward with evidence to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedures. Once that burden is met, the defense bears the burden of proving that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 311 N.Y.S.2d 292, 259 N.E.2d 727; People v. Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757, 484 N.Y.S.2d 913; People v. Sutton, 47 A.D.2d 455, 366 N.Y.S.2d 500...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McDonald, 2008-09292, Ind. No. 1788/06.
...conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness (see People v. Coleman, 73 A.D.3d 1200, 1203, 903 N.Y.S.2d 431 ; People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 695, 532 N.Y.S.2d 928 ; see also People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 311 N.Y.S.2d 292, 259 N.E.2d 727 ). This requirement “rests upon a recogni......
-
People v. Parker
...shifts to the defendant to establish that the procedure was unduly suggestive (see, id., at 734, 656 N.Y.S.2d 500; People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 695, 532 N.Y.S.2d 928). A photographic array is deemed suggestive if a photograph therein depicts a unique characteristic which draws the vi......
-
People v. Lundquist
...identical to those of the defendant but only that the fillers possess reasonably similar characteristics (see, e.g., People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 532 N.Y.S.2d 928; People v. Fisher, 143 A.D.2d 1037, 533 N.Y.S.2d Equally without merit is the defendant's contention that the evidence ad......
-
People v. Chavez
...; People v. Solis, 43 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 842 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; People v. Pinckney, 220 A.D.2d 539, 632 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 695, 532 N.Y.S.2d 928 ). A review of the photograph that was taken at the lineup also reveals that, contrary to the defendant's contention, a......
-
C. Identification Procedures
...U.S. 440 (1969); People v. Tatum, 129 Misc. 2d 196, 492 N.Y.S.2d 999 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co. 1985). [330] See generally People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692, 532 N.Y.S.2d 928 (2d Dep't 1988); People v. Burns, 138 A.D.2d 614, 526 N.Y.S.2d 199 (2d Dep't 1988); People v. Bunting, 134 A.D.2d 646, 5......