Opinion ID: 2543636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hollen's Trial

Text: ¶ 21 At Hollen's trial in February 1998, the State introduced evidence of the photo array and lineup identifications. Contreras, Channing Jones, Livolsi, and Pittman also identified Hollen in court. The defense made continuing objections to the identifications based on its previous claim that the identification procedures were unreliable. ¶ 22 Following the eyewitnesses' testimony, the defense called Dr. Dodd to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification. Dr. Dodd explained to the jury several factors that may affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications. He also applied these factors to particular facts of this case. In so doing, Dr. Dodd pointed out that the robber's disguise, Contreras's fear, and the composition of the photo spread all tended to undermine the reliability of the identifications. ¶ 23 The court did not, however, permit Dr. Dodd to give an opinion on the overall reliability of the process of identification: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Based on all these factors and what you know about this case, Dr. Dodd, do you have an opinion as to whether the process of identification in this case raises serious questions as to [its] reliability? THE STATE: [Objection.] I think these are matters the jury can decide. THE COURT: Objection is sustained. This is within the province of the jury, Counsel. ¶ 24 At the close of evidence, the court gave the jury a cautionary instruction on eyewitness identifications based on State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483, 494 n. 8 (Utah 1986). The jury found Hollen guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery.