Opinion ID: 2575903
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Robbing Linda Incardine

Text: In the pretrial notice to defendant of the aggravating evidence it planned to introduce, the district attorney's office included [t]he incident ... in which the defendant assaulted and robbed Linda R. Incardine.... Defendant moved to exclude evidence that Incardine identified him as the robber, arguing that the procedure used to have her identify him was unduly suggestive, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. When defendant assaulted Incardine, he was wearing a blue sweatshirt with the hood up, which she had a further opportunity to observe as he fled up the street in her view. In a pretrial proceeding in 1990 at which Incardine also identified defendant in court, she testified that officers took her to where they had arrested him and asked her if she recognized him. At the arrest scene, she asked to have him raise his sweatshirt hood, and once he did, she positively identified him. The trial court denied the motion to exclude the identification, ruling that the identification procedure was constitutionally sound. Defendant asserts that the identification procedure violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and that without the identification evidence there was insufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that he assaulted and robbed Incardine. We do not agree that any Sixth Amendment violation occurred. [19] In order to determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates a defendant's right to due process of law, 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, taking into account 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 demonstrated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of time between the offense and the identification. [Citations.] [І] The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of an unreliable identification procedure. ( People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th 926, 989, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519.) Defendant has not met his burden of establishing unreliability. Incardine identified defendant by his distinctive clothing and his general description within an hour after he assaulted and robbed her. She had a good opportunity to view his clothing as he fled. As she had done in 1990 during a pretrial proceeding, she identified him in court without hesitation. The foregoing indicia of reliability sufficed to make the identification evidence admissible. (See People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th 926, 990, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519.)