Court Opinion

ID: 5973832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 07:47:30.137509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:36.298107
License: Public Domain

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered January 24, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.
We find no error in the trial court’s summary denial of a Wade hearing. This case involves a police show-up at the crime scene where the risk of undue police suggestion, prompting concern for due process, does not apply. Where, as here, a robbery victim recognizes his attacker during a later face-to-face encounter which is not contrived by law enforcement officials and then directs the police to him, that spontaneous recognition is neither police-arranged nor subject to any suggestive police conduct. Thus, due process does not require that such an out-of-court identification be suppressed (see, *159People v Whisby, 48 NY2d 834; People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, cert denied 396 US 1020; People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445; cf., People v Bond, 156 AD2d 573). Moreover, an identification to clarify for the apprehending police that they have stopped the right suspect, which immediately follows such a spontaneous recognition, is simply sound police procedure, and is likewise not subject to suppression (People v Soto, 198 AD2d 38; People v Fulmore, 133 AD2d 169, 170; see also, People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262, 271-272; People v Kirkland, 192 AD2d 414, lv denied 81 NY2d 1075). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.