Whether a composite sketch used to identify a defendant can be admitted as evidence to prove the defendant's guilt.

No. Composite sketches are barred by the hearsay rule and thus are generally inadmissible against defendants to prove guilt. However, as an exception to the hearsay rule, a composite sketch may be admissible in cases where the testimony of an identifying witness is assailed as a recent fabrication.

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder, attempted robbery, and related crimes arising from an incident in which a cab driver was shot from behind by one of two male passengers. The police arrested Defendant on the strength of a composite sketch created by a police artist with the aid of the victim. At trial, the victim identified Defendant as being the non-shooter assailant. However, when shown a photograph of Defendant's brother during cross-examination, the victim mistakenly identified the brother as the non-shooter assailant. Although Defense did not assert that the victim had fabricated his testimony, People sought to introduce the composite sketch into evidence in order to rehabilitate the victim's impeached identification. The trial court sustained Defendant's objection and refused to admit the sketch into evidence. Subsequently, a detective's testimony on cross-examination called into question whether Defendant was properly identified, and People again sought to admit the sketch into evidence. Over Defendant's objection, the trial court allowed the sketch to be introduced. At no time did the trial court give any limiting instruction as to the use or purpose of the sketch.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, concluding that the trial court had properly admitted the sketch based on Prosecution's assertion that Defense had created a misapprehension as to the integrity of the police focus on Defendant as a suspect.

The Court of Appeals reversed. Noting the questionable reliability of composite sketches and the tendency of juries to convict or acquit defendants on the basis of defendants' resemblance to the sketches, the Court stated that it has long considered composite sketches to be hearsay. Consequently, composite sketches are generally inadmissible to prove defendants' guilt, see People v. Coffey, 11 N.Y.2d 142 (1962), especially in cases where the identity of the assailant is in dispute, see People v. Griffin, 29 N.Y.2d 91 (1971), and the proof rests entirely on identification. Furthermore, composite sketches may not be admitted into evidence merely to counteract evidence which places in doubt the reliability of an identification. The Court pointed out, however, that as an exception the hearsay rule, a composite sketch may be admissible as a prior consistent statement where the testimony of an identifying witness is attacked as a recent fabrication. The Court held that the trial court erred in admitting the sketch on People's second application because, given that nothing about the cross-examination of the detective suggested that the victim had lied in identifying the defendant as the non-shooter assailant, the exception to the hearsay rule did not apply.