Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01175/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance Majestic House
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1175

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lance Majestic House

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

____________

 Submitted: October 23, 2015

 Filed: May 23, 2016

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Lance House appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in 1

denying his motion to suppress photographic identification evidence, and for the first

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
time on appeal, he contends that a show-up identification tainted subsequent

photographic and in-court identifications. We affirm.

I.

On July 26, 2013, Logan Engelbrecht and Taylor Hruska were driving near

Lowell Elementary School in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, when they saw a man

pointing a handgun at another man. Engelbrecht, who was driving, called 911 and

described the gunman as wearing a red shirt, black pants, and a black hat, and having

a “fro” with a ponytail. She indicated that he was holding a small, black handgun. 

After Engelbrecht stopped the car, Hruska got out of the vehicle and walked toward

the area where they had spotted the man with the gun. Hruska observed the gunman

walking away from the scene. 

At about the same time, construction workers Shawn Jaminet and Jason

Diamond were replacing a door at Lowell Elementary School and saw a man with a

gun approach a group of people across the street from the school. The man pointed

the gun in another man’s face. Jaminet called 911 to report the incident and watched

the gunman run away from the group. He described the gunman as having a ponytail

and wearing a red shirt and black hat.

Two Sioux Falls Police Department (“SFPD”) officers, Officer Chris Bauman

and Reserve Officer Steve Schumacher, responded to the 911 calls. When the

officers arrived on the scene, they discovered House walking down the street with

another individual. Both officers observed that House was wearing a red shirt, black

pants, and a hat. The officers pulled their patrol car over to the curb, exited the

vehicle, and drew their firearms. They told House and the other man to freeze and put

their hands up, but House ran away from the scene. Officers Bauman and

Schumacher ran after House. Hruska continued to observe House as the officers

pursued him. Then, after the officers caught House, Hruska approached the police.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
By the time Hruska got to the police, the officers had already placed House in

the back of their patrol car. Hruska identified House asthe man she saw with the gun. 

Engelbrecht was not asked to identify House.

Emmet Warkenthien, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms and Explosives, became involved with the investigation of House after

House’s arrest. Agent Warkenthien developed a photographic lineup to show Hruska. 

He met with an SFPD intelligence analyst to use a computer program that compared

House’s Minnehaha County jail booking photograph to photographs of other

individuals booked into the same jail. They entered House’s physical characteristics

into the program to find individuals with similar features, and created a photographic

lineup with color booking photographs of six individuals.

On August 20, 2013, Agent Warkenthien met with Hruska and showed her the

photographic lineup. He told her that the person she observed on July 26, 2013 may

or may not be in the photographic lineup, and if the person she observed was pictured

in the lineup, she should identify the person by placing her initials next to the

photograph. Agent Warkenthien did not suggest to Hruska which person may have

been the person she observed. Hruska immediately identified photograph number

two, which wasthe photograph of House. Hruska had never seen House prior to July

26, 2013 and did not know his name at the time of the photographic lineup.

On January 7, 2014, a grand jury indicted House, charging him with being a

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). House pled

not guilty. Before trial, House moved to suppress Hruska’s identification of him in

the photographic lineup on the basis that it was impermissibly suggestive. United

States Magistrate Judge John E. Simko held a suppression hearing on March 5, 2014

in which Agent Warkenthien served as the government’s sole witness. Agent

Warkenthien testified that when he showed Hruska the six-person photographic

lineup, Hruska immediately identified House as the individual who had the gun on

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
July 26, 2013. Judge Simko filed a report and recommendation suggesting that the

district court deny House’s motion to suppress. The district court adopted Judge

Simko’s report and recommendation and denied the motion to suppress.

The case was tried before a jury on July 1 and 2, 2014. At trial, Hruska,

Engelbrecht, and Diamond made in-court identifications of House as the person

whom they observed holding a firearm on July 26, 2013. Officers Bauman and

Schumacher also made in-court identifications of House as the individual who ran

from them. 

The jury returned a guilty verdict against House. On January 9, 2015, House

was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised

release. House filed a timely notice of appeal. 

 

II.

House first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress

Hruska’s identification of House in a photographic lineup. “When reviewing the

denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de

novo but its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Burston, 806 F.3d

1123, 1126 (8th Cir. 2015). “We will affirm the district court unless the denial of

the motion is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous

interpretation of the law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear that a mistake was

made.” United States v. Zamora-Lopez, 685 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal

quotations omitted).

The Supreme Court has established a two-step inquiry into photographic

lineups. Schawitsch v. Burt, 491 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Manson v.

Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 (1977)); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 197

(1972); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). First, we must

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
determine whether the lineup was impermissibly suggestive. Schawitsch, 491 F.3d

at 802. If we find that the lineup is impermissibly suggestive, then we must examine

whether under the totality of the circumstances the lineup created a substantial

likelihood of misidentification at trial. Id. 

House argues that because he was the only individual in the photographic

lineup with long hair and a pony tail, the lineup was impermissibly suggestive. 

Furthermore, House asserts that in its denial of the motion to suppress, the district

court made factual findings, primarily based on AgentWarkenthein’s testimonyat the

suppression hearing, that did not comport with the evidence produced at trial.

The photographic lineup displayed six photographs ofmen wearing black-andwhite striped jail clothing. The photographs are all proportional in size, and the

background color and lighting is consistent. All of the men have dark brown hair,

and brown eyes. Their complexions are similar but not identical. Three of the six

have neck tattoos. The men appear to be roughly the same age. All but one have

facial hair of some sort, and three have goatees. Their hair varies in length: two have

short hair, three have “afro-style” hair, and one man, House, appears to have a

ponytail. 

In denying House’s motion to suppress, the district court reasoned that the

ponytail was not impermissibly suggestive because Hruska never mentioned a

ponytail in her description of the suspect to the 911 operator. Yet, Hruska’s

testimony at trial and Engelbrecht’s recorded 911 call suggest that the ponytail was

a distinctive feature of House’s that aided Hruska in identifying him. At trial, Hruska

testified that the man she saw with the gun had an afro and was wearing it in a

ponytail. From the record, it appearsthat the recording of Engelbrecht’s 911 call was

not played at the suppression hearing, but it was played at trial. Engelbrecht

describes House as having “kind of like a ‘fro,’ with a ponytail.” Hruska, as a

passenger in Engelbrecht’s vehicle, can be heard speaking in the background of the

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
911 call. Thus, one could reasonably conclude that Hruska was listening to and

agreed with Engelbrecht’s description of House, and that she too recognized the

ponytail as a distinguishing feature. Nevertheless, House never renewed his motion

to suppress based on the recording of Engelbrecht’s 911 call or Hruska’s testimony

at trial, even though they were inconsistent with Agent Warkenthien’s testimony at

the suppression hearing. 

Although the district court’s rationale for denying House’s motion to

suppress–that Hruska did not identify the ponytail as one of House’s distinguishing

characteristics–was undermined by evidence produced at trial, the photographic

lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. All of the men have brown eyes, darker

complexions, and dark brown hair. The ponytail is not prominently displayed in

House’s picture, and even appears asthough it could be a shadow. Three of the other

men have “afro-style” hair that is not in a ponytail. In a photographic lineup,

reasonable variations in hair length or style are not impermissibly suggestive,

“especially asthey can vary on any given person at different times.” Schawitsch, 491

F.3d at 803. Thus, the mere fact that House is the only individual pictured with a

ponytail does not render the photographic lineup unduly suggestive. Therefore, the

district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and the court did not err

in denying House’s motion to suppress Hruska’s identification of House in the

photographic lineup.

III.

House also contends that Hruska’s identification of House at a show-up was

impermissibly suggestive and tainted the photographic lineup and in-court

identifications of House by Hruska and Engelbrecht. House did not argue this

contention before the district court. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
When a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence at trial, we

review for plain error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc). The defendant must prove that there was (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3)

that affects the substantial rights of the defendant. Id. (citing United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). In most cases, for an error to affect the defendant’s

substantial rights, the error must have been prejudicial, meaning it affected the

outcome of the district court proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,

135 (2009) (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734). Further, we will exercise our discretion

to correct an unpreserved procedural error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at

732 (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)). 

To determine whether error occurred, we must decide whether the show-up was

impermissibly suggestive and unreliable. This requiresthe same two-step inquiry that

we utilized previously in examining the admission of the photographic lineup. The

Supreme Court has held that with respect to the admission of an out-of-court

identification such as a show-up, “[i]t is the likelihood of misidentification which

violates a defendant’s right to due process.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 198. Thus, “[a]

crime victim’s identification of the defendant is admissible unless it is based upon a

pretrial confrontation between the witness and the suspect that is both impermissibly

suggestive and unreliable.” United States v. Martinez, 462 F.3d 903, 910 (8th Cir.

2006)(citation omitted). An identification is unreliable if the circumstances allow for

“a very substantial likelihood ofirreparablemisidentification.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). “The relevant circumstances include ‘ the opportunity

of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of

attention, the accuracy of [her] prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty

demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and

confrontation.’” United States v. Jones, 535 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting

United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2003)).

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
Here, Hruska, as a passenger in Engelbrecht’s vehicle, observed a man pointing

a gun at another person. The gunman was standing on the sidewalk adjacent to the

street upon which Engelbrecht drove, and therefore wasin close proximity to Hruska. 

While Hruska was still in the vehicle, Engelbrecht called 911 and described the

gunman as a “large man, with a red shirt . . . black shorts, with a black hat on, and he

has kind of like a ‘fro,’ with a ponytail.” After Engelbrecht parked, Hruska exited the

vehicle and walked toward the area where she had seen the man with the gun. As she

approached, she observed the gunman cross the street and walk away from the scene. 

Then, she watched the police stop and subsequently chase the gunman. After the

police had him in custody, Hruska and Engelbrecht walked toward the police. Upon

their arrival, House was already in handcuffs and in the back of the patrol car. The

police asked Hruska if House was the man she had seen with the gun, and she

confirmed that House was the man she had observed. 

House argues that the show-up was unduly suggestive because an officer told

Hruska “this is the person” while House was handcuffed in the back of the patrol car. 

“Necessary incidents of on-the-scene identifications, such as the suspects being

handcuffed and in police custody, do not render the identification procedure

impermissibly suggestive.” United States v. King, 148 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Moreover, Hruska testified at trial that the police officers checked with her to confirm

that they had arrested the man she saw with the gun. They did not ask Engelbrecht

to confirm the arrestee’s identity, but Engelbrecht was also present for the show-up

and did not express any doubt. Under these conditions, the show-up was not unduly

suggestive. 

Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the circumstances reveal little

chance that the show-up resulted in an unreliable identification of House. Hruska had

ample opportunity to view House at the time of the crime because she was a

passenger in a vehicle that passed House as he stood on the sidewalk adjacent to the

street while pointing the gun at another person. Further, Hruska largely devoted her

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317 
attention to observing House until he was in police custody. Engelbrecht’s

description of the suspect matched House’s appearance at the time of his arrest.

2

Mere minutes passed between Engelbrecht’s 911 call and Hruska’s show-up

identification. At trial, Hruska testified that she saw the same man point the gun,

walk away from the scene, and run from the police, and that shortly after she

witnessed these events, she saw him in the back of the police car at the show-up. 

Based on this evidence, it is exceedingly unlikely that Hruska misidentified House

as the gunman at the show-up. 

Because there is no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, we

do not consider the further argument that Hruska’s and Engelbrecht’s subsequent

photographic identifications and in-court identifications of House were tainted by the

show-up. See United States v. Hadley, 671 F.2d 1112, 1116 (8th Cir. 1982) (“Since

we conclude that the show-up identifications pass constitutional muster, we do not

consider the further argument that the witnesses’ in-court identifications were the

‘poisonous fruit’ of tainted out-of-court procedures.”) 

Therefore, we hold that the district court did not plainly err by failing to

suppress Hruska’s show-up identification, as well as Hruska and Engelbrecht’s

photographic and in-court identifications, of House.

IV.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Furthermore, Jaminet, the other 911 caller, provided a description of the

2

gunman identical to Engelbrecht’s: “black hat, ponytail, red shirt.”

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-1175 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401317