Filed 1/17/24 P. v. Alvarez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE

,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE GUADAL UPE ALVAREZ

,
Defendant and Appellant. B3 2 3755

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. B A 494191 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Ang eles Coun ty, James R. Dabney

, Ju dg e

. Affirmed

. John L. Staley

, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant

. Rob Bonta, Attorney General

, Lance E. Winters

, Chief
Assistant Attorney General

, Susan Sullivan Pithey

, Senior Assistant Attorney General

, Idan Ivri, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Roberta L. Davis , Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION

While seated in the front passenger seat of a car at a gas station, Jose Guadalupe Alvarez pointed a gun at a stranger. That stranger, Andres Septium Diaz, identified Alvarez at a fi eld
show

- up a few hours later. Alvarez ultimately was convicted of assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon.
Alvarez appeals, arguing the trial court violated his
due process rights by admitting evidence of Septium’s
identification

. Before the show

- up , an officer told Septium that the police were pursuing the car Septium had seen at the gas
station , which Alvarez contends was an unduly suggestive

comment

. We conclude that, while the officer’s comment was somewhat suggestive

, there was no due process violation because Septium ’s identification of Alvarez was reliable under the totality of the circumstances

. Therefore, w e affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Alvarez Points a Gun at Septium
One night in 2021, Septium was d riving alone in his car. As Septium pulled into a gas station, a silver Lexus sedan
blocked him

, and the driver honked at him

. The front passenger of the Lexus point ed a gun at Septium from behin d the door’s open windo w

. Septium raised his hands and ben t his head down

, then backed his car out of the station and drove away.3 B. Septium Immediately Reports the Assault , and the
Police Tell Septium They Are Pursuing the Lexus Approximately 2 0 minutes late r , Septium flagged down Officer Eddie Martinez of t he Los Angeles Police Departmen t to report the assault

. Around the same time, Officer Michael Quezada saw a silver Lexus sedan that was reported stolen

, which happened to be the same Lexus involved in the assault

. When Officer Quezada attempted to conduc t a traffic stop , t he Lexus sped away

. Officer Quezada pursued in his patrol car

. While Officer Quezada was pursuing the Lexus, Officer
Martinez took Septium to a nearby police station to make a

statement

. Septi u m and Martinez had the following discussi on :

“ Officer Martinez : Right now they’re in, how do you say ?
P ursuit

. [ 1 ]

“ Septium: Oh, okay.

“ Officer Martinez : They have it.

“ Septium: Oh, really? The Lexus?

“ Officer Martinez : Yeah, a Le xus. It has to be them. .

. . The car’s stole n .” Septium d escribe d the incident to Officer Martinez

. Septium said the front passenger who pointed the gun at him

w as skinny, 24 or 25 year s old

, and Hispanic

, with “no hair.” Septium did not get a good view of the driver or see whether the
driver had hair , but he thought the driver was a man

. Septium
said he saw another man in the back seat , who Septium also

1 Most of the conversation s between Septium an d the officers

were in Spanish

. Officer Martinez , however, used the English word “pursuit

. ”4

thought had no hair. Septium was unsure whether there were any other people in the back seat.

C

. The Police Pursue and Detain Alvarez Meanwhile, Officer Qu ezada was pursuing the Lexus

. As
the Lexus travel ed 90 miles an hour on a freeway , someone in the

car threw a gun out a passenger

- side window

. Eventually the
Lexus got off the freeway and slowed down in a residential neighborhood . Two men g o t out of the car and start ed running

— one from the front passenger

- side door and one from the rear driver

- side door

. The front passenger w as wearing a black
T

- shirt, light pants, and white shoes

. The other one was also wearing a black T

- shirt

, but with dark pants and dark shoes. Officer Quezada continued to follow the Lexus , which came to a complete stop about a minute later

. At that point, there were only two people left in the car

— both women. An hour later, law enforcement officers found Alvarez hiding behind some bushes in the backyard of a house ne ar where the Lexus had stopped. Alvarez was wearing a dark T

- shirt

, light pants
, and white shoes ( like the person who was in the front passenger seat of the Lexus )

. Officers detained Alvarez , as well
as the other man they believed had been in the Lexus

.

D

. Septium Identifies Alvarez as the Assailant
Back at the police station , Officer Martinez told Septium

, “They’re coming in a bit with the suspects and they’re g o nna talk to you

. ” Eventual ly Officer Quezada arrived, introduced himself

to Septium

, and gave the following admonition : “ I’ m going to take you to a place

. . . to see if you can identify the person who was involved. Okay? So

, okay t he person we have right now is5

. . . temporarily in custody and is a

— is a possible suspect. Okay? Just because the person is in police custody does not indicate that he is guilty of what happened. Okay? So just because

. . . we now have him detained doesn’t mean that it’s the person who did it. Okay? ” Septium replied : “Y es, that’s fine.” Officer Quezada
continued : “ The reason for

— for what we are going to do

. . . the [ identification ] , is so you can see if the person

— if we can
eliminate the person or [identify] the person we have detained was the person who committed th e crime against you.” Septium replied: “ Oh, okay. ”
After the admonition

, Officer Quezada drove Septium to a nearby parking lot

. Officer Quezada told Septium: “We have four people. You tell me if anyone of [them] committed the crime or if anyone was in s ide the vehicle that you recognize.” Each of the suspects was seated in the back of a different patrol car. The first patrol car arrived in the parking lot with a

man who was not Alvarez . When Septium saw the man, Septium

s aid, “Not that one.” When asked to confirm his statement

, Sep t ium said : “I think so.

. . . It’s just that it was, when I saw them, it was like dark. ” The first patrol car drove away. The next patrol car arrived with Alvarez seated in the back

. While Septium was looking at Alv arez, he and Officer Quezada
had the following exchange : “Officer Quezada: I s it that guy?

“ Septium : Can I see the first person again? “Officer Quezada: The other one was taken away already

. . . . The se are gonna be women.”

“ Septium: They all look the same. He looked like this guy, the skinny guy.

“ Officer Quezada : Okay. So you t hink it is him?6 “ Septium : Yeah.” The final two patrol cars arrived with the two women
, neither of whom Septium recognized. After Septium saw all fou r suspects, Office r Quezada asked whether Septium had any questions. Septium said

, “ W ell

, the truth is they both looked the

same ,” but he added that “ the second one ” looked more like the
assailant. Later on

, Septium reiterated “ it was dark ” and “they
look a little bit ali ke .” Officer Qu e zada asked : “ But the guy you
had said first

. . . ‘Oh ye s , that’s him’

— that’s the one who looked like the person?” Septium again said “the second one” looked

more like the assailant.

E

. The People Charge Alvarez with Several Crimes
The People charged Alvarez with one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245 ; count 1 ) 2 and

one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) ; count 3 ). 3 For c ount 1, the People alleged Alvarez personally used a fi rearm in committing the offense

, within the meaning of section 12022.5, subd ivision (a). For both counts, the People alleged Alvarez had previously been convicted of two serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the three strikes
law. ( §§ 667, su bds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d)

. )

2 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 The re was no count 2.7 F

. The Trial Court Denies Alvarez ’s Motion T o Exclu d e Septium’s Identification Prior to trial, Alvarez filed a motion to exclude Septium’s
identification of Alvarez at the field show

- up , as well as any in

- court ide ntifications Septium might make at trial. 4 Alvarez argued the identification procedure was unduly suggestive
because Officer Martinez told Septium prior to the show

- up that law enforcement officers had the people in the Lexus.
The trial court denied the motion. The court concluded
that

, “on balance, the officers’ conduct was not suggesting it was
Mr. Alvarez ” because Officer Quezada admonished Alvarez that
the suspects “may or may not be the people involved in the incident” and because the officer did no t “pressure [Alvarez] into making the identification.” The court ruled tha t Officer Martinez’s statement before the show

- up , that the police had the suspects in the Lexus

, was not enough

, “on balance, to vitiate everything that transpired after.” Finall y, t he court stated Septium’s limited opportunity to view his assailant went to the weight of his testimony

, but was not sufficient to show the identification procedure was improper.

G

. The People and Alvarez Present Evidence at Trial Septium, Officer Ma rtinez, and Officer Quezada testified at trial for the People

. Septium identified Alvarez in court as the person who pointed the gun at him. During cross

- examination,

c ounsel for Alvarez questioned Septium extensively about his identification of Alvarez on the night of the assault

.

4 At the preliminary hearing, Septium identified Alvarez in
court as the person who point ed the gun at him

.8 The People played for the jury security footage from the gas station showing the interaction between Septium and the people
in the Lexus . The identit ies of the people in the Lexus were not clear from the security footage; how ever, the license plate o f the Lexus matched the license plate of the Lexus that Officer Quezada later pursued. The People played footage from the
dashboard camera of Officer Quezada’s patrol car showing the

two men getting out of the Lexus (and the diffe rent cloth ing each was wearing)

. Both t he People and Alvare z also played for the j u r y footage from body cameras worn by Officers Martinez and Quezada showing their interactions with Septium, including during the show

- up. Officer Brian Marukami of the Los Angeles Police Department testified he searched t he area where someone thr e w a gun out a window of the Lexus during the pursuit. Officer
Marukami found a black gun on the freeway with one round
loaded in the chamber.
A forensic print specialist and a f ingerprint expert also testified for the People. Both compared fingerprints lifted from
the inside of the front passenger window of the Lexus to Alvarez’s fingerprints . Both determined Alvarez ’s fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the window

. Mitch ell Eisen , an expert on “ eyewitness memory and suggestibility ,” testified for Alvarez. Eisen stated that “we use inference” to fill gaps in our memories and that “sometimes this reconstructive process leads to fi l ling in of new information that

may or may not be accurate.” Eisen also said that, during traumatic events, people have less ability to accurately remember
details about the event

.9 When discussing eyewitness identification s , Eisen stated the longer someone is “exposed to view [a] perso n .

. . th e better
shot ” he or she will “have later on of being able to identify and pick them out.” Eisen al so stated a person is much more likely to
make a false identification during a field show

- up

— where he or
she is shown “a single individual for identificatio n p urposes”

— than when shown a suspect in a group. According to Eisen

, because show

- ups are inherently suggestive

, it is the best practice for California peace officers (1) to use show

- ups only
when there are time constraints and (2) not to use the term “s uspect” when conducting a show

- up , because using the term makes the procedure more suggestive

.

H

. A Jury Convicts Alvarez , and the Trial Court
Sentences Him The jury convicted Alvarez on both counts and found true the allegation under section 12022.5, s ubdivision (a), he personally used a firearm in the commission of an assault with a
semiautomatic firearm

. Alvarez admitted he had two prior serious or violent felon y convictions under the three strikes law

. At sentencing, the court reduced the convictio n on count 1 from assault with a semiautomatic firearm to assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd

. (a)(2) ) 5 and dismissed one of the prior serious or violent felony convictions

. On count 1 t he court
sentenced Alvarez to a t erm of nine years ( the middle term o f

5 The court ruled there was insufficient evidence the gun Alvarez pointed at Septium was a semiautomatic firearm because

— although the gun had a magazine

— no one testified how the gun worked

.10

three years, doubled under the three strikes law, plus three years for the enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a) ). On
count 3 t he court imposed but stayed under section 654 execution of the upper term of six years

. Alvarez appealed from th e judgment.

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

“ To determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates due process, ‘ we consider (1) whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary, and, if so, (2 ) whether the identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances

. . . .’” ( People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn ( 2022 ) 12 Cal.5th 719

, 7 68 ( Holmes ) ; accord, People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 35 ( Sanchez ) ; People v. Clark ( 2016 ) 63 Cal.4th 522 , 556 ( Clark ) ; see Sexton v. Beaudreaux ( 2018 ) 585 U.S. ___ [ 138 S.Ct. 2555 , 2 559 ] [“‘ due process concerns arise only when law enforcement officers use[ ] an identification procedure that is both suggestive and

unnecessary ’ ” ] .) The defendant has the burden to show the identification procedure was both unduly suggestive and unreliable under the circumstances. ( People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 989 ; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353,
412 .)

“ A defendant ’ s claim th at an identification procedure was unduly suggestive is a ‘ mixed question of law and fact. ’” ( People
v. Wilson (2021) 11 Cal.5th 259, 283; see Clark

, supra , 63 Cal.4th at p. 557.) “ ‘ “ We review deferentially the trial court ’ s findings of historical fact, especially those that turn on credibility11

determinations, but we independently review the trial court ’ s ruling regarding whether, under those facts, a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive. ” ’ ” ( People v.
Thomas ( 2012 ) 54 Cal.4th 908 , 930

- 931; accord, Holmes

, supra , 12 Cal.5th at p. 768; see Wilson , at p. 283; Clark , at pp. 556

- 557.)

B. Even if t he Identification Procedure Was Suggestive

, Septium’s Identification of Alvarez Was Reliable
Under the Circumstances
Alvarez contends the field sho w

- up procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary because, prior to the show

- up , Officer
Martinez told Septium that police officers were in pursuit of a Lexus and “it has to be them.” All single

- person show

- up s are

“ ‘ i nherently suggestive, at least to some extent

. ’ ” ( Sanchez

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 36.) Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held “ such showups are not necessarily unfair. [Citation.] ‘Rather, all the circumstances must be considered.’” ( Ibid .;

see People v. Medina ( 1995 ) 11 Cal.4th 694 , 753 ( plur. opn. of Lucas, C. J. ) ; People v. Clark ( 1992 ) 3 Cal.4th 41 , 136.) “A violation occurs ‘ “ only if the identification procedure is ‘ so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. ’ ”’ ” ( People v. Wilson

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 283; see Holmes

, supra , 12 Cal.5th at

p. 768; Sanchez, at p. 3 5 .) 6

6 Alvarez does not challenge the officers’ use of a field show

- up, rather than a lineup, as unnecessary under the circumstances.12 It would have been better practice for Officer Martinez not to have told Septium that officers were pursuing a Lexus , that it “has to be the m,” or that they “were coming in with the suspects.”
But even if Officer Martinez’s comments rendered the show

- up suggestive

, there was no due process violation because Septium’s
identification of Alvarez was nevertheless reliable under the totality of th e circumstance s. (See Sanchez

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at

pp. 36

- 37 [even where “the suggestive nature of the identification
does raise concerns ,” the identification may still be “r eliable under the totality of the circumstances ” where the “th e inherent suggesti veness of the procedure was outweighed by other factors confirming the reliability of the identification ”] ; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 168 [“ When an eyewitness has been subjected to undue suggestion, the factfinder must nonetheless be
allowed to hear and evaluate his identification testimony unless the totality of the circumstances suggests a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. ” (internal quotation marks omitted)].)

“ In assessing the totality of the circumstances, we con sider

‘ “ such factors as the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the offense, the witness ’ s degree of attention at the time of the offense, the accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the level of certainty
demonst rated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of
time between the offense and the identification. ” [Citations.]

“ Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself .” ’ ” ( People v. Wilson

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 283; see Sexton v. Beaudreaux

, supra , 585 U.S. at

p. __ _ [ 138 S.Ct at p. 2559 ] ; Holmes

, supra , 12 Cal.5th at p. 768; Sanchez

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at pp. 35

- 36.)13 As an initial matter, to the extent Officer Martinez’s
comments about the Lexus were suggestive, their corrupting
effect was reduced by Officer Quezada ’s subsequent admonition immediately before the show

- up that, just because a person was in police custody, did not mean the person was involved in the
crime

. Courts have consistently held such admonitions reduce the suggestibility of an identification procedure. (See People v. Garcia (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360

- 1361 [ no due process violation, despite that police told the victim “ ‘ they had caught the

guys , ’ ” where police admonish ed the victim that he was not to infer guilt from the fact that the individuals were detained and
that he did not have to identify anyone ]; People v. Rodriguez (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1050 [ no due process violation where
the “ witnesses were shown the f our suspects after being admonished that the shooter might or might not be among
them ”] ; see also People v. Cunningham

, supra , 25 Cal.4th at

p. 990 [no “ ‘ substantial likelihood of irreparable
misidentification ’ ” during photographic lineup where the witness

“ ‘ was instructed that he was not to assume the person who committed the crime was pictured therein, that it was equally important to exonerate the innocent, and that he had no obligation to identify anyone ’ ”] .) Septium confirmed he
understood the admonit ion

. Moreover, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that no one pressure d Septium into identifying Alvarez or any of the other suspects officers showed him

. (See People v. Nguyen (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th at 32, 39 [ trial court’s finding law enforcement officer s did not encourage the witness to identify the suspect “will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence”] .)
When Septium view ed the first suspect
, he said

, “ N ot this one”;14

Officer Quezada said only , “ O kay

, ” and he told the oth er officers

“ i t’s gonna be a negative on this guy

. ” When Septium said he did not recognize either of the two women, Officer Quezada said, “Okay negative, .

. . he doesn’t recognize them.” When Septium
viewed Alvarez, Officer Quezada asked only w hether Al varez was the “ guy .” Septium asked whether he could see the first male suspect again, and Officer Quezada responded he had already been taken away. Only after Septium then said his attacker “looked like this skinny one” did Officer Quezada ask Septium to clarify whether he thought Alvarez was the assailant

. While Officer Martinez’s earlier comments about the Lexus may have suggested that one of the four suspects was probably Septium’s
assailant

, no one persuaded Septium to identify Alvarez or anyone else specifically

. ( See People v. Chavez (2018)
22 Cal.App.5th 663, 676 [ no due process violation where detective

“ did not expressly or implicitly attempt to persuade [ the witness] to identify [defendant] as his assailant ” ]; Nguyen , at p. 39 [ no due

process v iolation where the police “ ‘ did not impermissibly suggest in any way that [ the witness] had to make an identification of the suspects ’ ”].) 7 Similarly, Officer Martinez’s comment s

— to the extent they were suggestive

— implicated all four of the suspects, not just
Alvarez. The fact that Septium identified Alvarez but not the
other man in dicated he was not heavily influenced by the earlier

comments. ( See In re Carlos M. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 372, 386 [victim was not influenced by a single

- person show

- up proce dure where she “ positively identified one suspect but made no

7 Indeed, Alvarez does not argue the show

- up impermissibly suggested he was the more likely culprit than the other suspect.15

identification of his companion ” ]; see also People v. Garcia

, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1360 [witness “a cted independently of any suggestion or pressure that may have been expressed ” prior to the lineup where he was “un able to identify any of the defendants as suspects but did recognize

. . . the getaway car ”].)
Other factors confirmed the reliability of Septium’s identification of Alvarez. For one, Septium had a good opportunity to view Al varez . While Septium only saw Alvarez for

a moment during the assault and admitte d to Officer Quezada it
was dark

, Septium testified Alvarez was only a few feet away from him

. In addition, Septium ’s pre

- identification description of
his assailant as 24 o r 25 years old, skinny, Hispanic, and with no hair

— while somewhat general

— matched Alvarez’s appearance during the show

- up

. 8 Moreover, t he lapse of time between the assault and the identification was short ; Septium identified
Alvarez at the show

- up an hour and a half after the assault. (See Sanchez

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 37 [identification was reliable
where the “showup occurred mere hours” after crime]; People v. Hall (1979) 9 5 Cal.App.3d 299, 310 [identification was reliable where “ the length of time be tween the crime and the confrontation was approximately one hour ”].) More importantly, there was considerable evidence confirming Alvarez w as the person who pointed the gun at Septium. C ourts have regularly found identifications reliable
whe re other evi dence corroborates the accuracy of the witness’s

8 Alvarez was 26 years old the night of th e assault. Septium testified he recognized Alvarez as his assailant during the show

up because Alvarez was slim and because he had the same hairline , forehead, and eyes.16

identification

. (See Holmes

, sup r a , 12 Cal.5th at p. 769 [it was

“ not substantially likely that [ the witness] misidentified [ the defendant] , particularly in light of all the additional evidence ”] ; Sanchez, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 37 [ five

- year

- old witness’s
identification during a single

- photograph show

- up was reliable

, where “[p] art of the identification was independently corroborated by none other than defendant ,” and “ t he physical evidence corroborated par t of what [ the witness] told the police ”] .)
T here was no serious dispute Alvarez was in the front

passenger seat of the Lexus during Officer Quezada’s pursuit

. Alvarez’s fingerprints were on the inside of the front

- passenger window, Officer Quezada saw a person who looked like Alvarez ( and was wearing the same clothing ) get out from the front

passenger door ( an incident captured by Quezada’s body camera ),
and police found Alvarez hiding in a backyard a short distance from where the pursuit ended. (See Peo ple v. Nguyen

, supra , 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 40 [identification was reliable where fingerprint evidence placed the defendant at the crime scene].) The only other man in the Lexus was wearing different clothing

, further confirming Alvarez was the person in t he front

passenger’s seat . (See People v. Chavez

, supra , 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 676 [identification was reliable where the victim described to detectives the clothing his assailant was wearing, and the defendant was the only person in the surveillance camer a footage
of the attack wearing matching clothing] .) Although it is theoretically possible , as Alvarez asserts
, the occupants of the Lexus changed seats after the assault on Septium, there was no evidence supporting such speculation

. And there was eviden ce to the contrary. Only a short period of time elapsed between the assault and the beginning of Officer Quezada’s pursuit

, and no17

one saw anyone change seats during the pursuit (though Officer Quezada did see someone throw a gun out the window on the

pas senger side)

. It is true Septium was not 100 percent certain of his
identification of Alvarez at the field show

- up , admitting both male suspects looked alike

. Septium’s lack of certainty , however,
did not render the identification unreliable. People v. Wilson

, supra , 11 Cal.5th 2 5 9 is instructive. I n that case the witness briefly saw the defendant in court at a hearing. ( Id. at p. 286.)
A month later, the witness participated in a live lineup where he
could not positively identify the defendant, but stated that

, among the lineup participants, the defendant “most closely resembled” the person he saw commit the crime

. ( Ibid. ) The Supreme Court held the witness’s “failure to definitively identify” the defendant at the lineup did not undermine the relia bility of
the identificatio n

. ( Id. at p. 287.) In particular, the Supreme
Court explained that

, to the extent the identification was “ useful to any degree

, ” it was because it “ bolstered the more definitive
identifications ” of the defendant by other witne sses. ( Ibid. ) Similarly

, Septium may not have been certain during the field
show

- up Alvarez was the person who assaulted him, but Septium consistently stated Alvarez looked more like the person who assaulted him than the other male suspect. Like the wit ness’s
less

- than

- certain identification in Wilson

, Septium’s
identification was useful at trial to bolster the other incriminating evidence

— namely, the evidence placing Alvarez in
the front

- passenger seat of the Lexus at the time of the assault

. Finally, at trial Alvarez had ample opportunity to (and did) question Septium about the identification and Officers Martinez and Quezada about the ir interactions with Septium. The18

opportunity to question all relevant witnesses significantly reduced the possibilit y of any “‘irreparable misidentification.’” ( Manson v. Brathwaite ( 197 7) 432 U.S. 98, 116; see Holmes

, supra , 12 Cal.5th at p. 770 [identification was reliable where “[t] he defense was able to thoroughly cross

- examine [the witness] and delve into factors bearing on the reliability of his
identifications ”]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 903 [no due process violation where the “c ircumstances of the identification were disclosed to the defense, they were the subject of thorough cross

- examination, and the jury was able to evaluate the reliability of [ the witness’s] identification ”] ; People v. Cooks (1983) 141 Cal.App. 3d 224, 271 [identifications were reliable
where “e ach witness who identified one of the defendants in court

was cross

- examined at le ngth about his or her pretrial identification ”]

. ) Under the circumstances, the identification was sufficiently reliable that its introduction at trial did not violate Alvarez’s due process rights

. It was up to the jury to consider
how th e procedure might have influenced Septium’s identification
of Alvarez and weigh that with the other evidence

. ( See Manson

, at p. 116 [“ Juries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable fe ature. ”]; People v. Alexander

, supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 903 [same]; People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 944 [“ [w] hether the witnesses were truthful when they identified
defendant

. . . presented credibility questions for the jury to
resolve ,” and “ pre senting the evidence to the jury for its
resolution did not violate defendant ’ s rights ”].)19 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

FEUER , J.

MARTINEZ , J.