PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered March 8, 2006, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (J. Goldberg, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police properly detained the defendant, who had sustained injuries, and transported him to a hospital, for the purpose of a showup identification procedure, in the interest of securing a prompt and reliable identification.   The police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had stabbed the victim (see People v. Blanche, 90 N.Y.2d 821, 822, 660 N.Y.S.2d 375, 682 N.E.2d 976;  People v. Cruz, 31 A.D.3d 660, 661, 818 N.Y.S.2d 302;  People v. Guiterrez, 270 A.D.2d 184, 707 N.Y.S.2d 7;  Matter of Jakiyo L., 256 A.D.2d 466, 467, 682 N.Y.S.2d 399;  People v. Santiago, 251 A.D.2d 239, 674 N.Y.S.2d 684;  People v. Sledge, 225 A.D.2d 711, 712, 640 N.Y.S.2d 117;  People v. Conyers, 176 A.D.2d 340, 574 N.Y.S.2d 776;  People v. Beltraz, 165 A.D.2d 745, 746, 560 N.Y.S.2d 190;  People v. Perez, 135 A.D.2d 665, 522 N.Y.S.2d 241).

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, as the showup, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, approximately one hour after the crime occurred, at a hospital located approximately one mile from the crime scene, was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Blanche, 90 N.Y.2d at 822, 660 N.Y.S.2d 375, 682 N.E.2d 976;  People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 664 N.Y.S.2d 243, 686 N.E.2d 1337;  People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654;  People v. Berry, 50 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 856 N.Y.S.2d 228;  People v. Crumble, 43 A.D.3d 953, 842 N.Y.S.2d 35;  People v. Fox, 11 A.D.3d 709, 784 N.Y.S.2d 565;  People v. Grant, 17 Misc.3d 673, 676-677, 843 N.Y.S.2d 911;  cf. People v. Colon, 42 A.D.3d 411, 840 N.Y.S.2d 579).   In addition, the trial court did not err in declining to reopen the Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149;  CPL 710.40[4];  People v. Clark, 88 N.Y.2d 552, 553, 555, 647 N.Y.S.2d 479, 670 N.E.2d 980;  People v. Velez, 39 A.D.3d 38, 42, 829 N.Y.S.2d 209).

The trial court properly permitted the People to display the defendant's arrest photograph to the witnesses for the purpose of an in-court identification, as the defendant had absconded after jury selection and was tried in absentia (see People v. Thompson, 306 A.D.2d 758, 760, 763 N.Y.S.2d 109;  People v. Waithe, 163 A.D.2d 347, 557 N.Y.S.2d 174).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675;  cf. People v. Cooper, 146 A.D.2d 494, 536 N.Y.S.2d 769).