From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 20, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kellam, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The victims of a robbery were brought to the precinct house by an investigating police officer for the purpose of filing a complaint shortly after the occurrence and the arrest of the defendant. Although the officer transporting the victims heard over his radio that the perpetrators were being transported to the precinct house at the same time, he testified that he expected he would arrive with the complainants first. He took further precaution to avoid an encounter with the defendant by escorting the complainants through the front door of the precinct house rather than the door near the parking lot used in transferring prisoners. Despite his precautions, however, upon entering the precinct house, the two complainants saw the defendant along with his three accomplices standing in handcuffs at the front desk. The complainants simultaneously identified the prisoners, including the defendant, as the persons who had robbed them. The police officer immediately ushered the complainants into an adjoining room out of the view of the defendant and his accomplices.

Where, as here, "[a]n accidental or unarranged showup at the police station is not unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive since such an event is unavoidable and is not attributable to any misconduct on the part of the police" (People v Hampton, 129 A.D.2d 736, 737; see also, People v Lawrence, 143 A.D.2d 1045), the hearing court properly denied suppression. Given the totality of the circumstances, including the brief time span between the crime and the viewing, the spontaneous recognition of the defendant by the two complainants, and the lack of police misconduct, there was no "`substantial likelihood of * * * misidentification'" (People v Gonzalez, 61 A.D.2d 666, 670, affd 46 N.Y.2d 1011). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Diaz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LOUIS DIAZ, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 20, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Harrell

Without this purposeful conduct, there is no such confrontation; the viewing is merely inadvertent. (People v…

People v. Nimmons

We agree with the hearing court's finding that this viewing at the precinct was accidental and did not…