Opinion ID: 1610587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Should the in-court identification of Nixon by Thomas Tucker have been suppressed?

Text: Before being arrested and indicted for the January 22, 1985 murder, Nixon was positively identified as one of the assailants by Thomas Tucker at an October, 1985 lineup conducted in Jackson, Mississippi. Thomas Tucker had previously identified in a March, 1985 lineup a Henry Cooper who Tucker said looked very much like John Nixon. Prior to trial, Nixon filed a Motion to Suppress Pre-Trial Lineup Identification, alleging that the pre-trial lineup was unduly suggestive and was conducted while Nixon was unrepresented by counsel. Thereafter, prior to voir dire, defense counsel moved to withdraw the said motion. At trial, during the direct examination of Thomas Tucker, Tucker identified John Nixon, Sr. as the man who entered his house and shot him. There were no objections made during the identification testimony. On appeal, Nixon contends the in-court identification should have been suppressed because the out-of-court identification was unduly suggestive and was made while Nixon was deprived of his right to counsel. There was no objection made at trial to any identification testimony. In fact, the defendant's motion to suppress had been withdrawn. Generally, where there was no motion or contemporaneous objection at trial, this Court will not consider an error raised for the first time on appeal. Miss.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); Copeland v. State, 423 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss. 1982). However, this Court has recognized exceptions to the general rule when errors affect fundamental rights. Gallion v. State, 469 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Miss. 1985) (denial of due process). In addition, this Court may notice plain error affecting substantial rights. Miss. Sup.Ct.R. 6(b); Miss.R.Evid. 103(d).