PEOPLE v. DAVIS (1998)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered June 6, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

 The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion.  “The showup here was the culmination of an unbroken chain of exigent events-officers meeting with the complainants [almost immediately] after the robbery, and, while interviewing them, receiving a radio transmission that a possible suspect had been apprehended, and then immediately driving the witnesses to where the suspect[s] [were] being detained,” only a few miles away from the scene of the robbery (People v. Davis, 232 A.D.2d 154, 647 N.Y.S.2d 742, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1091, 660 N.Y.S.2d 385, 682 N.E.2d 986).  Accordingly, the showup was justified by the exigent necessity to take prompt advantage of the witnesses' fresh memories.   Furthermore, the showup was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that defendant was handcuffed, laying down, and injured (People v. Blanche, 90 N.Y.2d 821, 660 N.Y.S.2d 375, 682 N.E.2d 976;  People v. Anthony, 249 A.D.2d 102, 671 N.Y.S.2d 471, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 878, 678 N.Y.S.2d 25, 700 N.E.2d 563), the fact that he was viewed when he was next to the other suspects (People v. Colson, 148 A.D.2d 626, 539 N.Y.S.2d 89, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 662, 543 N.Y.S.2d 405, 541 N.E.2d 434), the fact that an officer told the witnesses to come to the arrest scene to see if they could identify or recognize anyone from the robbery (People v. Stafford, 215 A.D.2d 212, 626 N.Y.S.2d 763, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 784, 631 N.Y.S.2d 630, 655 N.E.2d 727), or the fact that two witnesses were transported to the arrest scene together (People v. Davis, supra).

We have considered and rejected defendant's other arguments.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.