Court Opinion

ID: 9835251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:15:55.294251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:00.227526
License: Public Domain

*515Chambers, J.,
dissents, and votes to reverse the judgment, on the law, and order a new trial, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source for the identification testimony exists, with the following memorandum: I cannot subscribe to the majority’s view that the lineup identification evidence in this case was not unduly suggestive. As the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was far from overwhelming, and hinged essentially on the identification testimony (see People v Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]), I would reverse and order a new trial, to be preceded by an independent source hearing (see People v Pride, 129 AD3d 869, 870 [2015]).
Although defense counsel may have failed specifically to point out, during the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]), the apparent difference in age between the defendant and the fillers, the issue is nonetheless preserved for appellate review because the hearing court expressly considered the age of the lineup participants in rendering its decision (see People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756, 757 [2012]; People v Davis, 69 AD3d 647, 648-649 [2010]; but see People v Colon, 46 AD3d 260, 262-264 [2007]).
When age is considered along with other factors, such as skin tone, height, and the presence of a distinctive tattoo on the defendant’s neck (which was plainly visible when one of the witnesses asked each of the lineup participants to step close to the one-way mirror), the lineup, in my view, was unduly suggestive (see People v Robinson, 123 AD3d 1062 [2014]; People v Dobbins, 112 AD3d 735 [2013]; People v Puckett, 270 AD2d 364 [2000]; People v Murphy, 260 AD2d 505 [1999]; People v Breitenbach, 260 AD2d 389 [1999]).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.