Opinion ID: 1798829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in refusing to suppress identification testimony.

Text: We agree with appellant's argument that the state may not use in-court testimony and identification by witnesses whose testimony has been tainted by unconstitutionally conducted and impermissibly suggestive procedures. Sims v. State, 258 Ark. 940, 530 S.W.2d 182 (1975). We have held that the judge must look to the totality of the circumstances in such cases to determine if there is a likelihood of misidentification. James & Elliott v. State, 270 Ark. 596, 605 S.W.2d 448 (1980). Reliability of evidence is the linchpin in determining its admissibility. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and Matthews v. State, 275 Ark. 1, 627 S.W.2d 20 (1982). We reverse the trial judge in such matters only if we find it was clearly erroneous. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980). Reliability of eye witness identification is normally a question for the jury, however, fundamental fairness of identification procedures addresses itself to the trial court as a matter of law under Beed . Several witnesses testified at the suppression hearing concerning the photographic and physical line-ups which were considered by the various witnesses. Witness Jeffcoat testified that the appellant had a blond, frizzy-headed look with black eyebrows and a black mustache. After viewing the physical line-up and picking out appellant, the witness stated to the prosecutor that he hoped he had selected the right person and the prosecutor allegedly stated that he believed Jeffcoat had picked the right man. It was improper for the prosecutor to make such a statement but it was made after the witness had identified the appellant. Therefore, the error is not prejudicial in this case. From the facts it does not appear that the line-up was used to crystallize this witness's memory so that he could later be used to make an in-court identification. Another witness, the widow of one of the victims, picked the appellant from the physical line-up because she believed he was one of two persons who was in their jewelry store a few days before the murder. All of the witnesses to the physical line-up were apparently kept in one room prior to viewing the line-up. The evidence indicates that the witnesses did not discuss the matter of identifying anyone in the line-up, however, it still would have been a better practice to separate the witnesses prior to viewing the line-up. It is true some of the witness's testimony was vague and general in nature. However, this is a matter which addresses itself to the jury. Witness Linda Godwin testified at the suppression hearing. She was unable to identify the appellant in the photographic line-up. She expressed some reservations about her identification of the appellant in the physical line-up. She further stated that she had seen appellant's picture in the newspaper before viewing the line-up. She could not remember whether the appellant had a mustache but she did remember he had a beard. This was in direct contradiction with descriptions other witnesses had given about the appellant. Witness Parr identified the appellant in the photo show-up. He did not hedge on his testimony and was very positive in his identification of the appellant as the man who had been in his store for about 15 minutes during the first part of September 1980. Parr also testified that the men he saw in his store, which is located near the store which was robbed, were in their mid-20s and slim but not skinny and about 5' 10 tall. His testimony at the trial was essentially the same. His testimony was to the effect that the dark haired man (appellant) did not have a mustache. His description was, to say the least, not identical with that of any other witness. Witness Carson testified at the suppression hearing. He testified that he recognized the appellant in the photographic line-up and that it appeared the man had lost 26 pounds since he observed him nine or ten months prior to the suppression hearing. Also, he had observed appellant's picture in a newspaper. Gilford Heckathorn did not participate in the line-up procedure or testify at the suppression hearing. Heckathorn claimed to have rented a storage building to the appellant for storing a motorcycle and other items. At the trial he positively identified an alternate juror as the man to whom he rented the building. There was no objection to his testimony or to that of Grant Cummins and we will not dwell upon their testimony as any error has been waived. Grant Cummins' testimony was most positive at the trial, but it was later revealed that he examined the photographic line-up at the request of the prosecuting attorney during a break in the trial while the appellant was still seated at the counsel table in view of the witness. This was highly improper on the part of the prosecuting attorney but the witness's testimony was introduced without objection. As to the photo identification, it appears that witnesses Ginn, Etier, Carson, Parr and Jeffcoat identified the appellant and witnesses Godwin and Staton were unable to do so. It must be kept in mind that the appellant apparently changed his outward appearance often. He appeared as a curly haired blond and as a light colored long-haired individual, as well as having straight dark hair in the physical line-up. However, it appears that his eyebrows were always dark and when he had a mustache it was dark. The various witnesses observed the appellant at different times and he may well have appeared somewhat different to each of them. On the other hand, it is not unusual for several witnesses to view the same individual at the same time and come up with different descriptions. An accused is not entitled to have a line-up in which all the participants are identical. Sometimes the accused may even have a distinctive appearance which none of the other participants possess. McCraw v. State, 262 Ark. 707, 561 S.W.2d 71 (1978); James & Elliott v. State, supra. Generally speaking, the reliability of identification testimony can adequately be tested on cross-examination. Harrison v. State, 276 Ark. 469, 637 S.W.2d 549, (1982). We held in Sims v. State, 258 Ark. 940, 530 S.W.2d 182 (1975): ... before an error of constitutional proportions may be considered harmless, it must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be able to say that untainted evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming before we can even consider whether the error is harmless. Also see Freeman v. State, 258 Ark. 617, 527 S.W.2d 909 (1975). The rule as established in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and followed by this court in Montgomery v. State, 251 Ark. 645, 473 S.W.2d 885 (1971), is that when a line-up is conducted for the purpose of crystallizing a witness's identification without the presence of the accused's counsel, the state must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the subsequent courtroom identification by a witness who identified the accused in such a line-up was based upon independent observation rather than upon the constitutionally infirm line-up procedure. Although the evidence against the appellant in this case is all circumstantial, it is by no means all dependent upon the identification testimony of any particular witness. We have held that in-court identification can be held inadmissible as a matter of law only if, after viewing the totality of the circumstances, it can be said that the identification was patently unreliable. McCroskey v. State, 271 Ark. 207, 608 S.W.2d 7 (1980); and Mayes v. State, 264 Ark. 283, 571 S.W.2d 420 (1978). Finally, we state that while some of the witnesses' testimony conflicted with that of other witnesses, the testimony was still admissible and its credibility was a matter for the jury. Therefore, we do not find that the court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony as it related to the photographic and physical line-up identification process.