Opinion ID: 1891504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ms. Renfro's Identifications of Tressler and Simmons' Vehicle

Text: Ms. Renfro testified at trial that she saw a white car slow down at a red light when a woman tried to climb out, screaming, Help me, help me, please. She stated that the woman looked directly at her with fear in her eyes. As Ms. Renfro approached the car, yelling at the driver to stop, the car sped off, and she got in her van and chased after the car until she lost the car. Ms. Renfro testified that she thought the car was a Chevrolet Corsica, but she didn't really know [her] cars too well, just the body style reminded [her] of a Corsica. On December 4, 2001, three days later, Ms. Renfro wrote a statement describing the events and people she had witnessed, stating that the woman she saw was an older woman with shorter, pinned up brown hair and a white T-shirt. That same day, Detective Perdue showed her one picture of Tressler, which she was able to identify right away. Six days later, on December 10, Ms. Renfro met Detective Perdue at the sheriff's office to view a car parked in the sallie port, which she identified as the car she had seen on the night of December 1. She testified at the hearing that she was sure it was the same car because of the flag on the side window, a patriotic sticker in the rear window, and the car's blue interior. Based on these facts, we agree that showing Ms. Renfro one picture of Tressler and one vehicle was unduly suggestive. See Washington, 653 So.2d at 365. However, . . . a pretrial identification obtained from suggestive procedures is not per se inadmissible, but may be introduced into evidence if found to be reliable and based solely upon the witness' independent recollection . . . at the time of the crime, uninfluenced by the intervening illegal confrontation. Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 538 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1989)). Ms. Renfro had an abundance of time and good lighting conditions to view the victim and the car. She also gave written descriptions of Tressler and the vehicle she saw the night of December 1 before viewing the single photograph of Tressler or Simmons' vehicle in the sallie port. Because of the timing of the descriptions, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion that they were the result of Ms. Renfro's independent recollection, uninfluenced by the intervening illegal confrontation. Id. We further conclude, using the Neil factors, that Ms. Renfro had adequate opportunity to view the woman and car she saw on the night of December 1; her descriptions were sufficiently accurate; she was certain of what she saw on the night of December 1; and the length of time between the crime and her identifications was only a matter of days. Therefore, any discrepancies between Ms. Renfro's descriptions and what Tressler and Simmons' car actually looked like, such as Simmons' claim that Ms. Renfro's description of Tressler's hair was inaccurate, were the proper subject of cross-examination, but not sufficient to amount to a bar to admissibility. Dennis, 817 So.2d at 761.