Appeal from order of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1972, Nos. 584 to 586, inclusive, affirming judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, June T., 1967, Nos. 1060, 1061, and 1063, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Edward Lee Turner.
David Zwanetz, for appellant.
Maxine J. Stotland and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Jones.
On May 8, 1967, a cabdriver was robbed at approximately 10 p.m., at 32nd and Pearl Streets in Philadelphia
by two men. Following the robbery, the cabdriver left his cab and within minutes found the police, who broadcast that a robbery had occurred. While the cabdriver was in the police car giving the description of the two robbers he heard a broadcast that two men had been apprehended one block from the scene of the robbery.*fn1 A minute or two later a police car arrived with the two men in the rear seat and the cabdriver positively identified them as his assailants. One of these two men was the appellant, Edward Lee Turner.
Appellant was tried on August 23, 1967 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia on charges of playfully and wantonly pointing a firearm, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and aggravated robbery. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, convicted appellant on all counts and sentenced him to 7 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment on the aggravated robbery charge.*fn2 No direct appeal was taken. Subsequently, a PCHA petition was filed and a hearing was held on January 27, 1972, at which time appellant was granted the right to file an appeal as though timely filed.*fn3 On appeal to the Superior Court, the judgment of sentence was affirmed, per curiam. We granted allocatur and this appeal followed.
Appellant claims that he was denied due process of law in that he was subjected to a prompt on-the-scene one-on-one identification, which was introduced by the prosecution at the trial. Specifically, appellant contends that being taken by the police to the cabdriver for identification and being viewed in the rear seat of the police car was overly suggestive and prejudicial.*fn4
Evidence of identification should not be received at trial if the circumstances of the pretrial confrontation were so infected by suggestiveness as to give rise to an irreparable likelihood of misidentification, Stovell v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). See also Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Commonwealth v. Mackey, 447 Pa. 32, 288 A.2d 778 (1972); Commonwealth v. Williams, 440 Pa. 400, 270 A.2d 226 (1970); Commonwealth v. Marino, 435 Pa. 245, 255 A.2d 911 (1969). However absent some special elements of unfairness, we do not believe that prompt on-the-scene confrontations fall within this ambit of suggestiveness. We find support for this position in the opinions of the federal courts which hold that an in-custody-at-the-scene identification made shortly after the commission of the crime does not violate due process. United States ex rel. Gomes v. New Jersey, 464 F. 2d 686 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Poe, 462 F. 2d 195 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Gaines, 450 F. 2d 186 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 927 (1972); United States v. Perry, 449 F. 2d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1971); United States v. Miller, 449 F. 2d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1971); United States v. Sanchez, 422 F. 2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970); Harris v. Dees, 421 F. 2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1970); Russell v. United States, 408 F. 2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 928 (1969); Wise v. United States, 383 F. 2d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 964 (1968). The Russell court, which fully discussed the opposing ...