Opinion ID: 2383457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photograph Admissible

Text: Stephenson's only contention in this appeal is that the Superior Court committed reversible error by admitting the police photograph of Stephenson into evidence. Stephenson contends that the photograph in this case failed to meet the three prerequisites for admissibility of mug shot type photographs of a defendant, which were set forth by this Court in Brookins v. State, Del.Supr., 354 A.2d 422 (1976). In Brookins, this Court held that before mug shot type photographs can be admitted into evidence: (1) the prosecution must show a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph; (2) the photograph, if shown to the jury, must not imply that the defendant has a prior criminal record; and (3) the introduction at trial must not draw particular attention to the source or implications of the photograph. Id. at 423. Despite Stephenson's argument to the contrary, the record demonstrates that the photograph in this case did meet the three prerequisites of Brookins. First, because Stephenson presented an alibi defense in this case, the sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator. Given Stephenson's attempt to discredit Mallon's in-court identification of Stephenson as the robber, the prosecution had a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph in order to rebut the inference of a mistaken identification by the State's only eyewitness to the crime. [3] See id. at 425 (If there is an attack upon the [in-court] identification [of the defendant], then rebuttal testimony about the photographic review would be appropriate to support the in-court identification.). Second, the photograph, which showed a front and side view of Stephenson's upper torso and head dressed in civilian clothes, did not contain any direct or indirect reference to Stephenson's prior criminal record. The record indicates that there were no markings on the front or back of the photograph to indicate that the photograph was part of a police file. See id. at 424-25. Therefore, the photograph met the second prerequisite of the Brookins test. Third, as to the source or implication of the photograph, there is nothing in the record to support Stephenson's contention that the State's action was contrary to this standard. The State's introduction of the photograph was as follows: Q. Detective, what is that that I just handed you? A. It's a photograph, a front facial view and a left side view of Matthew Stephenson. Q. Now, under cross-examination from the defense it is clear that there were nine photographs and one was of the defendant? A. Yes Q. That you showed the victim? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you get that photograph from? A. Troop 2. . . . . . Q. Detective, just to clarify the situation is this the photograph that was used in the photo lineup? A. Yes it is. Q. And was the victim able to pick out the defendant based on the photo lineup that you put before him? A. No. Q. And was he able to pick out any particular individual that you had in the nine individuals that you showed? A. No. Nothing in this colloquy improperly suggests Stephenson's prior criminal record. The officer did not refer to the photograph as a mug shot, nor did the officer's reference to Troop 2 insinuate Stephenson's prior criminal activity. As this Court has previously noted, [s]howing photographs to victims and witnesses is a routine part of police investigation. Brookins v. State, 354 A.2d at 425. There is nothing in the officer's testimony to suggest that anything more than that was done here. Consequently, we conclude that the photograph met the three prerequisites of Brookins. [4] Therefore, Stephenson's claim that the Superior Court committed reversible error, by admitting the photograph into evidence, is without merit.