Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin BLANCHE, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.05(2) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.02(1). The main issue on this appeal is whether a hospital showup was impermissibly suggestive in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.
On July 25, 1994, in the City of Buffalo, defendant and several other persons passed by the home of James and Mary Webber and then returned, at which time defendant shot James Webber. Shortly thereafter, Mary Webber, who did not witness the shooting, identified defendant at the crime scene. Defendant was then transported by the police to the hospital where James Webber had been taken with an abdominal wound. The defendant was in handcuffs and bleeding from his head when James Webber identified him.
We reject defendant's argument that a hospital showup is inherently improper (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 [“prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant's arrest at or near the crime scene have been generally allowed and have never been categorically or presumptively condemned”] ). Moreover, given the injury to James Webber and the necessity of a prompt identification, the showup was not, as defendant claims, unduly suggestive (see, id.). While defendant also argues that the identifying witness was told, prior to the identification, that the defendant was under arrest, that argument is not supported by the hearing record.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
MEMORANDUM.
KAYE, C.J., and TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 05, 1997
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)