Citation Numbers: 80 N.Y.2d 857, 587 N.Y.S.2d 593, 600 N.E.2d 224, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1598
Filed Date: 7/2/1992
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
The People failed to provide timely notice of the photographic identification (CPL 710.30). As a result, the trial court suppressed Saleh’s in-court identification testimony but permitted him to say that the person he observed being chased down the block on July 12 participated in the July 8 robbery. We agree with defendant that this was reversible error as, without the improper identification testimony, the case was based entirely on the testimony of the store owner (see, People v Green, 78 NY2d 1029). Moreover, on a second related robbery charge, as to which only the owner testified, the jury acquitted defendant.
While the witness was properly allowed to testify concerning his description of the robber given to the police prior to the potentially tainted identification procedure, there is no evidence in this record that the witness ever communicated to the police — prior to that identification — his perception that the person he saw being arrested on July 12 was the same person he saw commit the robbery on July 8 (see, People v Myrick, 66 NY2d 903; People v Sanders, 66 NY2d 906). Thus, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the perception testimony was untainted by the improper photo identification procedure.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.