PEOPLE v. HALL (1999)

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[2], [4] ) and one count of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2] ), arising from the armed robbery and shooting of a young man in the City of Buffalo on August 3, 1994.   When questioned by the police, the victim described the assailant only as being a dark-skinned black man.   The victim's mother, who did not witness the crime, told police that she believed that Lamont Hall, a/k/a “Pretty Boy Black”, was responsible for the attack.   In September the victim observed defendant on a television newscast after he was arrested on an unrelated charge and telephoned the police.   Based on that information, the police prepared a photo array that included a recent photograph of defendant.   The victim identified defendant as the person who robbed and shot him.

 Defendant concedes that there is nothing suggestive about the photo array itself, but contends that the police exploited suggestive circumstances by showing the victim the photo array after the victim had observed defendant on television and after the victim's mother had indicated her suspicions that Lamont Hall was responsible for the shooting.   We disagree.   The record establishes that the victim's observation of defendant on television “was a mere happenstance unoccasioned by [the police], and did not lead * * * to a danger of mistaken identification” (People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 303 N.Y.S.2d 353, 250 N.E.2d 454, rearg. dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 733, 314 N.Y.S.2d 542, 262 N.E.2d 680, rearg. denied 27 N.Y.2d 737, 314 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 262 N.E.2d 683, cert. denied 396 U.S. 1020, 90 S.Ct. 592, 24 L.Ed.2d 513;  see, People v. Vail, 182 A.D.2d 331, 333, 589 N.Y.S.2d 193, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 977, 598 N.Y.S.2d 779, 615 N.E.2d 236).   Thus, County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony and properly allowed the victim to identify defendant at trial.

 Given defendant's history of violent behavior, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a lengthy prison term and ordering it to run consecutive to a sentence imposed on an unrelated criminal conviction.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: