Title: State v. Redmond

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

75 Wn.2d 62 (1968) 448 P.2d 938 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PATRICK T. REDMOND, Appellant.[*] No. 40005. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. December 13, 1968. Warren Hardy, for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal). *63 Charles O. Carroll and Donald D. Skinner, for respondent. POYHONEN, J.[] Appellant, Patrick T. Redmond, appeals from a conviction of robbery. Trial was to a jury. Appellant's sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress the identification of the appellant by the witness, Virginia Rohn, the hold-up victim. On June 20, 1967, Virginia Rohn was the owner and operator of a beverage store at 74th and Greenwood in Seattle. Her testimony is that about 10:50 p.m. on that date she was alone in the store and that: *64 She further testified that during most of this period of time he was about 6 feet from her; that at his command she took money from the till, placed it in a paper bag, which he took and then left the store; that immediately thereafter she called the police; that he was not masked, and that she was able to see his face, observe his complexion, color of his hair, and gain an impression as to his approximate height and weight, but that she does not remember how he was dressed. Five days later, on June 25, 1967, Virginia Rohn identified the appellant in a police lineup of five men as the one who had robbed her. Eighteen days later she again identified him at a hearing held in a justice court setting. The appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the eye-witness identification by Virginia Rohn for the reason that appellant had been denied the right to have his lawyer present during the police lineup. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 87 Sup. Ct. 1926 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178, 87 Sup. Ct. 1951 (1967); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199, 87 Sup. Ct. 1967 (1967). The trial judge held a full day's preliminary hearing to determine whether the identification by Virginia Rohn was admissible in evidence. After the hearing, the trial court: (1) suppressed the identification of the appellant resulting from the lineup and ruled out any testimony regarding Virginia Rohn's identification of the appellant in the lineup; and (2) made a finding that Virginia Rohn was able to make an untainted in-court identification. [1] United States v. Wade, supra, holds that the Sixth Amendment guaranty of the assistance of counsel to a defendant extends to police lineups and that a subsequent in-court identification by a witness who was present at the lineup is inadmissible unless the prosecution can show by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification has an independent source uninfluenced by the lineup. The court at 240, stated: That the trial judge fully understood and applied the rule of the Wade case is readily apparent from his oral decision at the conclusion of the pretrial hearing. We quote in part: [2] The record before us of the hearing on the pretrial motion to suppress establishes that there was substantial evidence that Virginia Rohn was able to make an in-court identification of the appellant independently of the police lineup and entirely untainted by it. Where, as here, it is clear that the trial court weighed the conflicting evidence before it and where there is substantial supporting evidence, the trial court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal. We have examined the record in accordance with our duty as set forth in State v. Hoffman, 64 Wn.2d 445, 392 P.2d 237 (1964) and find ample evidence to support the findings of the trial court. See State v. Burgess, 71 Wn.2d 617, 430 P.2d 185 (1967). [3] Ordinarily we would not have considered this case on its merits for the reason that trial counsel (not the counsel on appeal) failed to except to the trial court's findings of fact on the pretrial hearing and failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and to move for a dismissal or a directed verdict of "not guilty" at the close of the state's case. However, we have deemed it proper to consider the assignment of error on its merits since it invites an inquiry into whether the appellant was accorded a constitutionally *67 fair trial. See State v. Peterson, 73 Wn.2d 303, 438 P.2d 183 (1968) and cases therein cited. Judgment affirmed. FINLEY, C.J., HILL, HUNTER, and HAMILTON, JJ., concur. February 19, 1969. Petition for rehearing denied. [*] Reported in 448 P.2d 938. [] Judge Poyhonen is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution.