## Facts

- Two street robberies occurred in the same Brooklyn neighborhood in February 2011; both victims were white and each described the assailant as a Black man who first asked the time before taking a cell phone.
- In the first robbery, the victim chased the robber until the robber displayed a knife; the victim gave a general physical description including height, weight, and clothing.
- In the second robbery, a teenager resisted surrendering his phone and was stabbed; he provided a description of the assailant’s race, approximate age, height, and weight.
- Police suspected Otis Boone, a 19-year-old Black man with a similar general description.
- Boone was placed in two separate six-person lineups; each victim identified him. The teenager was initially uncertain but identified Boone after Boone spoke the words used in the robbery (“What time is it?”).
- No stolen phones were recovered and no physical evidence linked Boone to either crime.
- At trial, the defense requested a jury instruction specifically addressing cross-racial identification; the court denied the request and gave an expanded eyewitness-identification instruction that omitted cross-racial language.
- Boone was convicted of robbery-related charges; the intermediate appellate court largely affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether, when identification is in dispute and the eyewitness and defendant appear to be of different races, a requested jury instruction on cross-racial identification must be given.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Boone’s request for a cross-racial identification instruction where the prosecution’s case relied primarily on cross-racial eyewitness identifications.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that when identification is at issue and the eyewitness and defendant appear to be of different races, a party is entitled, upon request, to a cross-racial identification charge.
- The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the requested instruction in a case turning largely on uncorroborated cross-racial identifications.

## Legal Principles

- When identification is genuinely disputed and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, the trial court must give a cross-racial identification instruction if a party requests it.
- The entitlement to the instruction does not depend on expert testimony or other case-specific scientific proof.
- A cross-racial instruction is justified because jurors may not appreciate, without guidance, the well-recognized risk of reduced accuracy in cross-racial identifications.
- Refusal to give the instruction may warrant reversal where cross-racial identification evidence is central and lacks substantial corroboration.

## Conclusion

The court required, upon request, a cross-racial identification jury instruction in cases where identification is disputed and the eyewitness and defendant appear to be of different races, and it ordered a new trial because the trial court’s refusal to give the instruction left the jury without needed guidance in a case resting primarily on cross-racial eyewitness identifications.


People v. Boone, 30 N.Y.3d 521 (N.Y. 2017)