People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 27 November 1989 |
| Citation | 548 N.Y.S.2d 271,155 A.D.2d 706 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dexter THOMAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (David A. Crow, of counsel), for appellant.
Dexter Thomas, pro se.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Seth M. Lieberman and Jonathan D. Sands, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered March 29, 1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress prospective testimony concerning the lineup identification of the defendant is granted, and a new trial is ordered, to be preceded by a hearing as to the issue of whether the complainant possessed an independent source upon which to predicate an in-court identification of the defendant. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The defendant was being held on an unrelated charge when the police obtained a court order compelling him to participate in a lineup procedure with respect to the instant offense. The attorney who represented the defendant in connection with a pending unrelated matter was notified about the lineup. Although this attorney initially indicated that he wished to be present at the lineup, he subsequently contacted the prosecutor and advised him that he would not be appearing. The defendant was compelled to participate in the lineup, without benefit of counsel, and he was identified by the complaining witness as the perpetrator of the crime. Testimony concerning the lineup identification was elicited at the trial and a photograph of the lineup was also admitted into evidence.
We find merit to the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence regarding the lineup identification. It is beyond dispute that the defendant had a right to the presence of counsel during the lineup since he was incarcerated on an unrelated matter for which he was represented by counsel and a removal order had been issued to secure his attendance at the lineup (see, People v. Coleman, 43 N.Y.2d 222, 401 N.Y.S.2d 57, 371 N.E.2d 819). While a defendant may waive his right to counsel, there is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dorant
...at the lineup unless he chose to waive that right. There is nothing in this record to suggest such a waiver (see, People v. Thomas, 155 A.D.2d 706, 548 N.Y.S.2d 271, affd. 76 N.Y.2d 902, 561 N.Y.S.2d 909, 563 N.E.2d 280). Similarly, the record contains no indication that the notification of......
-
People v. Wilson
... ... Coleman, supra ), and the identification obtained in violation of that right should have been suppressed (see, e.g., People v. LaClere, supra, at 672-673, 563 N.Y.S.2d 30, 564 N.E.2d 640; see also, People v. Thomas, 76 N.Y.2d 902, 561 N.Y.S.2d 909, 563 N.E.2d 280, affg. 155 A.D.2d 706, 548 N.Y.S.2d 271; People v. Coates, supra ) ... Because the lineup herein resulted in the only identification testimony linking the defendant to the commission of the crime, the error cannot be considered ... ...
-
People v. Olmo
...74 N.Y.2d 787, 545 N.Y.S.2d 95, 543 N.E.2d 738; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Thomas, 155 A.D.2d 706, 548 N.Y.S.2d 271, aff'd, 76 N.Y.2d 902, 561 N.Y.S.2d 909, 563 N.E.2d 280) since identification was the only significant issue at defendant's......
-
People v. Colon
...to forego attending the lineup (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556; cf., People v. Thomas, 155 A.D.2d 706, 548 N.Y.S.2d 271; People v. McCrimmon, 142 A.D.2d 606, 530 N.Y.S.2d 260). Accordingly, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that the heari......