Opinion ID: 2356915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the confrontation

Text: Defendant, citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), contends that his due process rights were violated when he was identified by a witness under circumstances improperly suggestive of his guilt. He also asserts that, since the State did not clearly establish an independent origin for his in-court identification by that witness, it was tainted and should have been suppressed. We disagree with both assertions. Again, for the factual setting, we look to the findings of fact made by the trial court at the suppression hearing. Patrolman Thomas McLaughlin of the Burlington Police Department transported the defendant from the scene of the stop to the police station. On arrival, the cruiser was parked in front of the station, about twenty feet from the front door. Patrolman McLaughlin let defendant, then neither under arrest nor handcuffed, out of the cruiser and they proceeded to walk toward the front door to the police station. The officer was walking to the rear and to one side of the defendant, but there was no physical contact between the two. Though it was nighttime, there was a street light in front of the police station and another light over the entrance of the station. When the officer and the defendant started up the steps, four or five people in the company of Detective Spernak were coming out of the building en route to the detective bureau next door. These people were prospective witnesses whom the detective was leading next door for questioning. Neither Spernak nor the witnesses had any knowledge at that time that the defendant or anyone else was being brought to the station by an officer for any purpose. As the group of witnesses was descending the outside steps and passing defendant and Patrolman McLaughlin, one of them, Gary Traub, exclaimed: That's him. He's the one that shot my friend. Detective Spernak asked, Are you positive? Mr. Traub replied, I'm positive! Though other members of the group agreed to Traub's identification of the defendant, Traub was the first to speak and was the only one of them to testify at the trial. While at the scene of the shooting, less than an hour before, Traub had initially seen the defendant from a distance of five feet, holding a gun in the air. He had walked backwards three-fourths of a block up the street to where his car was parked while keeping an eye on the defendant the whole time, and he had witnessed the shooting. He estimated that defendant was in his view for a total of approximately five minutes. United States v. Wade, supra , recognizes that [a] major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification. 388 U.S. at 228, 87 S.Ct. at 1933. Defendant contends that Traub's identification was the result of a conclusion Traub drew upon seeing the defendant in police custody entering the police station. However, we hold that the confrontation was not improperly suggestive. Suppression of identification testimony on the basis of suggestiveness is proper only as a tool to curtail improper police procedure. Hill v. United States, 367 A.2d 110 (D.C.App.1976). Inasmuch as the setting surrounding the identification was not precipitated or arranged by law enforcement officers, the spontaneous recognition could not be attacked under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. Id. Furthermore, as we concluded in State v. Mayer, 129 Vt. 564, 572, 283 A.2d 863, 868 (1971), [t]here is ample justification in the record to support the conclusion that [Traub's] identification at the trial was based entirely on his observation of the defendant at the time of the [shooting]. Observation was at a distance of five feet and for five minutes. There had been no masks, the witness's memory was fresh, and there was no doubt in his mind as to the accuracy of the identification. In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 375, 381, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), the Supreme Court explained that in confrontations with witnesses, [i]t is the likelihood of misidentification which violates a defendant's right to due process . . . . Substantial likelihood of misidentification did not here exist. Indeed, prompt confrontations in circumstances like this will if anything promote fairness, by assuring reliability. Bowler v. United States, 322 A.2d 281, 282 (D.C.App.1974). No error appears.