1 No. 57
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Anthony Lee,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 48
May 8, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Catharine F. Easterly, for appellant.
Susan Gliner, for respondent.
The Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau et al., amici curiæ.
GRAFFEO, J.: In the eleven years since People v Mooney (, 76 NY2d
827), this Court has not been presented with an opportunity to revisit
the admissibility of expert testimony proffered on the issue of the
reliability of eyewitness identification. We now hold that, while such
expert testimony is not inadmissible per se, the decision whether to
admit it rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Here, the
Trial Court did not abuse that discretion in denying its introduction.
In the early morning, Michael Perani's car was stolen at gunpoint in
Manhattan. The robbery occurred in an area that was well illuminated
by a street lamp and lights from a nearby store. Perani stood only
four or five feet from defendant and exchanged words with him during
the brief encounter. Defendant drove off with the vehicle and Perani
telephoned for assistance, but the police were unable to locate
defendant.
Defendant was arrested two months later, after he was stopped for a
traffic violation and discovered driving Perani's stolen
vehicle.(1) It was not until more than six months from the arrest
that the detective assigned to the robbery learned that defendant had
been found in possession of Perani's automobile. Upon acquiring this
information, the detective compiled a photographic array, which he
displayed to Perani, who identified defendant as the person who stole
his car. Ten days later, Perani again identified defendant in a
lineup.
During a pre-trial hearing, defendant moved to introduce at trial the
testimony of a "psychological expert" for the purpose of explaining to
the jury the factors that may influence the perception and memory of a
witness and affect the reliability of identification testimony.
Defense counsel's affirmation stated that "the expert would testify
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In the eleven years since People v Mooney (, 76 NY2d 827), this Court has not been presented
We now hold that, while such expert testimony is not inadmissible per se, the decision
Defendant drove off with the vehicle and Perani telephoned for assistance, but the police
Defendant was arrested two months later, after he was stopped for a traffic violation and
Upon acquiring this information, the detective compiled a photographic array, which he
defendant moved to introduce at trial the testimony of a "psychological expert" for the
Defense counsel's affirmation stated that "the expert would testify how factors such as the
During the People's case-in-chief, defendant renewed his request to introduce expert
A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal,
"It is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw
Essentially, the trial court assesses whether the proffered expert testimony "would aid a lay
Testimony had also been elicited from the police officer who arrested defendant while in
Both the Hearing Court and the Appellate Division found that, although there were slight
the felony criminal possession charges were reduced to a misdemeanor charge of criminal
|
