THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ENRIQUE ORTIZ, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 533, 686 N.E.2d 1337, 664 N.Y.S.2d 243 (1997).
October 21, 1997
1 No. 186
(97 NY Int. 0162)
Decided October 21, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Allen Fallek, for appellant.
Ellen Sue Handman, for respondent.
WESLEY, J.:
Defendant Enrique Ortiz was convicted of two counts of attempted
murder and one count each of criminal possession of a weapon in the
second and third degrees for shooting at two New York City Police
Officers outside of an apartment building in Manhattan in the early
morning hours of March 22, 1993. The two officers who were the
intended victims of the attack were broughtback to the apartment
building after seeking treatment at a hospital, and identified
defendant as the perpetrator. The Appellate Division affirmed
defendant's conviction, holding that, since the identification
procedure was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to
the crime, the procedure, which it characterized as a showup, was
proper.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing
to suppress the trial identification testimony of the two officers
because the People did not present any evidence at the suppression
hearing to establish that the identification procedure that was
employed was not unduly suggestive. Because no evidence whatsoever was
offered as to the circumstances of the identification procedure
itself, we hold that the People failed to meet their burden of coming
forward with evidence that the procedure was not unduly suggestive. We
therefore reverse defendant's conviction and remit for a new trial, to
be preceded by an independent source hearing.
Officers Colon and Sullivan were on patrol in the vicinity of 78
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ENRIQUE ORTIZ, APPELLANT.
Defendant Enrique Ortiz was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and one count each of
The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that, since the
defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the trial
We therefore reverse defendant's conviction and remit for a new trial, to be preceded by an
Officers Colon and Sullivan were on patrol in the vicinity of 78 Ellwood Avenue when they
Upon arriving at the scene and being advised of a possible disturbance in the building, the
The only witness who did testify at the hearing was Officer Reardon, who arrived with his
While Sullivan held a man who had come out of the building, Reardon, Colon and Almodovar
Nevertheless, prompt showup identifications which are conducted in close geographic and
Indeed, while in Duuvon this Court upheld the admissibility of identification testimony
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
