Summary
permitting identification testimony following an accidental confrontation, where the suspect was handcuffed to a railing in the police station when a witness entered
Summary of this case from Richardson v. Supt. of Midorange Correctional FacilityOpinion
May 19, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence, which included unequivocal eyewitness testimony by two disinterested witnesses, one a 23-year veteran of the New York City Police Department and the other a minister, in the light most favorable to the People, as we are obliged to do at this stage of the proceedings, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (see, People v Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 768; People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 203), the defendant's active participation in a brutal, racially motivated mob assault upon three black men was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant's contention that there was no probable cause to arrest him is without merit. The police officers arriving at the scene of the assault arrested one Joseph Wiggins after speaking with James Green, the off-duty police officer who was an eyewitness to the assault. The police drove Wiggins a short distance to the location where two victims of the assault had retreated. There, both assault victims identified Wiggins as one of the assailants. While en route to the station house, Wiggins was asked by the police who was with him at the time of the assault and he named the defendant. At the precinct, Wiggins repeated his statement. At about 1:30 A.M., shortly after the police brought Wiggins to the precinct, the defendant came into the station house. The defendant had scrapes on his right hand and elbow, a lump on his forehead, and dirt on his clothes, arms and face. When the defendant gave his name, he was arrested. The identification of Wiggins as a perpetrator, Wiggins' statement inculpating the defendant, and the defendant's physical condition when he appeared at the station house made it more probable than not that a crime had been committed and that the defendant was one of its perpetrators (cf. People v Gordon, 87 A.D.2d 636).
Additionally, there is sufficient support in the record for the finding by the hearing court that the showup identification of the defendant at the station house was accidental. The police officer who arrested the defendant initially handcuffed him to a railing in the same room in which Wiggins had been placed. After being told by a superior officer to separate the two suspects, the arresting officer handcuffed the defendant to a railing in the front of the station house, near a desk. Meanwhile, Officer Green and the other eyewitness went to a hospital where Officer Green was treated for an injury that he had sustained while assisting in the arrest of Wiggins. When Officer Green and the other eyewitness entered the station house at approximately 2:30 A.M., they noticed the defendant handcuffed to the railing near the desk and identified him. The testimony of the other eyewitness, that no one directed her attention to the defendant, was uncontradicted. Moreover, there was no evidence that either of the eyewitnesses had any reason to believe that the police had apprehended any suspect other than Wiggins. Under the circumstances, the hearing court's finding that the showup was accidental was appropriate (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Burton, 106 A.D.2d 652).
We have considered the defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.