Opinion ID: 863014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Courtroom Identification

Text: ¶7. In support, McCall asserts that because Allen identified him almost two years later after the crime, in a courtroom where he was the only African-American man, that her identification was tantamount to a police station lineup in which a witness identifies the only black suspect. Further, arguing that Allen did not have adequate time to observe the suspect with sufficient attention and accuracy, McCall asserts that the jury failed to follow the instructions of the court with reference to the identification issue. We disagree. ¶8. The credibility of identification testimony is an issue for the jury and there is no reason for this Court to disturb its decision in this case. Wash v. State, 521 So.2d 890, 896 (Miss. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Wharton v. State, 734 So. 2d 985, 991 (Miss. 1998). The evidence presented at trial indicates nothing that would compel a fairminded jury to disregard Allen's identification, for: (1) when McCall told Allen that he was going to kill her, she looked straight into his face and told him to do so; (2) her testimony was firm and definite when she identified McCall as the person who struck and threatened to kill her; and (3) McCall's confession fully corroborated her testimony. With this evidence before the jury, we find no support for McCall's argument that the jury disregarded the instructions of the court. ¶9. This Court has also held that if, at trial suggestiveness is thought to be a problem, the defendant must ordinarily take steps to avoid the problem before claiming a due process violation. Gayten v. State, 595 So.2d 409, 418 (Miss. 1992). Here, McCall failed to take any precautions to guard against a suggestive identification forum. Specifically, he did not request others to be seated at the counsel table with him, or request to be seated elsewhere in the courtroom among others of his race or appearance, nor did he request a pre-trial test of the identification. Id. McCall was also given adequate opportunity to crossexamine Allen at trial and has admitted that the jury was adequately instructed.