Opinion ID: 2272236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photo-Array Lineup

Text: Appellant's next argument concerns the merits of the trial court's ruling that Kustes's identification was admissible. Ultimately, this Court finds no error. An in-court identification violates due process if the pretrial identification procedures were so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 377, 383 (Ky.1999) (quoting Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F.2d 893, 895 (6th Cir.1986)). Deciding whether an in-court identification is so suspect as to violate due process involves a two-step test. The first step is to determine whether the procedures under which the identification was secured were unduly suggestive. Gerlaugh v. Commonwealth, 156 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Ky.2005) (quotation omitted). Under the second step, an unduly suggestive identification may still be admissible if, under the totality of the circumstances, it had sufficient independent indicia of reliability. Thigpen, 804 F.2d at 895; accord Gerlaugh, 156 S.W.3d at 751. In this case, the trial court ruled that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive under the first step, and so it never reached the second step. This Court has reviewed the array and agrees with the trial court's assessment. The key to the first step is determining whether Appellant stood out of the lineup so much that the procedure was unduly suggestive. To illustrate, if the defendant has extremely light skin in an array otherwise composed of dark-skinned participants, the lineup is unduly suggestive. United States v. Fernandez, 456 F.2d 638, 641-43 (2d Cir.1972). An identification can also be unduly suggestive if the defendant stands out of the lineup because of his height and because he was wearing clothing resembling that worn by the criminal. Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 443, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). However, a photo-array lineup is not unduly suggestive if the defendant is the only participant with a fade haircut, Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782, 906 N.E.2d 299, 310 (2009), or if the defendant has a different eye color, Commonwealth v. Crork, 966 A.2d 585, 589-90 (Pa.Super.2009), as long as he has reasonably similar features to the other participants. Similarly, a lineup is not unduly suggestive if the photograph of the defendant was the most clearly focused, People v. Sawyer, 253 A.D.2d 501, 501, 677 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y.App.1998), if the defendant's photo is a full length shot while the rest of the photos are bust shots, United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1235 (5th Cir.1972), or if the defendant was the only participant depicted in a single, front-view photograph and the only one who was clean shaven, United States v. Harrison, 460 F.2d 270, 271 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam). This Court has said that a photo-array lineup was not unduly suggestive where only the defendant wore glasses and a jacket, given that the photos were otherwise similar. King v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 645, 650 (Ky.2004). Turning to this case, the photo-array lineup was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Dillingham, 995 S.W.2d at 383 (quoting Thigpen, 804 F.2d at 895). Appellant and the other five participants are all white males with very short hair and roundish heads. Appellant appears to have blue eyes, like four out of the five others; and, he and four of the others appear to have average builds. In short, Appellant's features are similar to those of the other participants. It is true, however, that Appellant's photo stands out to some extent. In particular, he was wearing a colored shirt with a collar, whereas the other participants appear to be wearing white or black t-shirts. In addition, his photo appears to be taken at a higher resolution; the other photos are of lower quality and lack proper gradation of shades and tones in some places, particularly around the participants' necklines. [1] And the lighting in the other photos appears to be brighter. However, all of the photos are single, simple front-view headshots, taken against a solid white background. Appellant does not stand out so much in the photo-array lineup that admitting Kustes's identification of him violated due process. Appellant's features resemble those of the other participants, and the difference in quality of the photos is not so great as to prevent reasoned consideration of the other participants. The differences here are no worse than in King, where the defendant was the only participant with glasses and a jacket, 142 S.W.3d at 650. The problems with the lineup seem analogous to the defendant having a different haircut, cf. Silva-Santiago, 906 N.E.2d at 310, having the only single, front-view photo, cf. Harrison, 460 F.2d at 271, or having the only full-length body shot in the lineup, cf. Bell, 457 F.2d at 1235, all of which have been held to not be unduly suggestive. Consequently, this Court concludes Kustes was properly allowed to give an in-court identification of Appellant. Last, it is worth noting that even if this Court were to find that the lineup was unduly suggestive, it would still be saved by sufficient independent indicia of reliability in Kustes's identification. Kustes had described the perpetrator as having a tattoo on his neck reading D W Ba tattoo which, it turns out, is also on Appellant's neck. Kustes had viewed Appellant for some time at White Castle and so she was familiar with his appearance. She had, as the trial court described, expressed a great deal of certainty in her identification. And, as Appellant concedes, [t]he time between the crime and the confrontation was relatively short. Thus, even if this Court were to conclude that the photo-array lineup was unduly suggestive under the first step, we would nevertheless conclude that the identification was admissible under the second step. There was no error.