Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: did the court err in admitting becky settlemires' identification testimony?

Text: Ramada Inn maid Becky Settlemires observed Frank, Sr. on Tuesday and Wednesday, December 22 and 23. On Friday, December 25, she described Frank, Sr. to Officer Burns. The following week Burns showed Settlemires a polaroid photograph which she identified as depicting the man she had seen in the motel room on December 22 and 23. We observe the purpose of this procedure was to aid officers in their search for the perpetrators of the robbery/homicide. Frank, Sr. now argues that Settlemires was shown only one photograph which was, by its isolation, unduly suggestive and tainted her in-court identification of him. The major issue in a case of this sort is the avoidance of a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 375, 381, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). The factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382. Application of these factors to the facts of this case renders the following observations: (1) Settlemires was in the motel room for 25 to 30 minutes with Frank, Sr. where he engaged her in brief conversation. She also saw and recognized him the next day. (2) It is difficult to determine Settlemires' level of attention; however, she spoke with Frank, Sr. and noticed that he needed a shave. (3) On Friday, December 25, Settlemires gave Officer Burns a description of Frank, Sr. from which a composite drawing was rendered. (4) Settlemires' in-court identification of Frank, Sr. was unequivocal. (5) Ten (10) days elapsed between the time Settlemires observed Frank, Sr. in the motel room and the photographic identification, which was prior to Frank, Sr.'s arrest. Moreover, Settlemires accurately described Frank, Sr. to Officer Burns one week prior to the photographic identification. We conclude the record supports the court's determination that Settlemires' in-court identification had not been tainted by undue suggestion and there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Therefore, we conclude proposition XIII is without merit.