80 N.Y.2d at 798 Determining harmless error in identification testimony5 citing casesWhile the Appellate Division was correct that the existence of an independent source for an in-court identification is relevant to harmless error…
- People v. Thomas P. Perdue, 232 N.E.3d 738 (N.Y. 2023).publishedIn any event, any error was clearly harmless (see People v Harris, 80 NY2d 796, 798 [1992]; People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677, 678 [1989]; People v Oliver, 34 NY2d 859, 860 [1974]).
- People v. Shortell, 155 A.D.3d 1442 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).publishedWe also find that, given the first Cl’s testimony regarding the controlled buys and his prior knowledge of defendant, the investigator’s corroboration of defendant’s identity as the supplier, testimony of the second Cl regarding her contro…
- People v. Lambert, 44 A.D.3d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedUnder the circumstances of this case, the erroneous admission of the complainants’ identification testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Harris, 80 NY2d 796, 798 [1992]; People v Mack, 300 AD2d 254, 255 [2002]; Peop…
- People v. Christie, 18 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).publishedAny error in the admission of the testimony regarding the showup that followed the defendant’s brief detention was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, which included the in-cou…
- People v. Jackson, 43 A.D.3d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedAccordingly, there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict was affected by any error with respect to the People’s failure to provide CPL 710.30 notice regarding Duda’s review of the recordings and, thus, any such error would be harm…
Other citing cases
- People v. Terrell Allen, 24 N.E.3d 586 (N.Y. 2014).published
- People v. Reuben, 215 A.D.2d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1995).published
- People v. Johnson, 599 N.E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1992).published
v.
Marvin Harris
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree for his participation in the knife-point mugging of an elderly victim as she approached and entered her Brooklyn home. At trial, the victim testified regarding her lineup identification of defendant. Admission of this testimony, which should have been suppressed because of the suggestive nature of the lineup, was erroneous. Despite this trial error, the Appellate Division affirmed under the harmless error doctrine. It concluded that strong independent source evidence supporting the victim’s in-court identification of defendant was established and explicitly found by the hearing court, and that this evidence was sufficient to satisfy the harmless error test.
[*798] While the Appellate Division was correct that the existence of an independent source for an in-court identification is relevant to harmless error determinations, in this case the strength of the independent source evidence, standing alone, does not establish harmless error. A traditional and more thorough harmless error analysis is required.
We nevertheless agree that the order affirming the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. The mugging victim’s strong, independently evolved, nonsuggestive, in-court identification was buttressed by her sister’s testimony and by other surrounding evidentiary inferences and circumstances. Taken together, there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction; thus, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677; see also, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; compare, People v Johnson, 80 NY2d 798 [decided today]; contrast, People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244; and People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.