Opinion ID: 2081910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Motion to Suppress Eyewitness Identification

Text: Oliveira asserts that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to suppress the out-of-court and in-court eyewitness identification by Green because the procedures used by the police were impermissibly suggestive and resulted in an irreparably mistaken identification, in violation of his due process rights. On appeal, Oliveira asserts that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive because of purported dissimilarities between the individuals depicted in the photographs contained in the photo array and dissimilarities between the photographs themselves. We decline to address this argument. Oliveira never made these arguments to the trial justice at the suppression hearing. Instead, he contended that suggestive statements Det. Corley made to Green during the identification process rendered the photo array unduly suggestive. According to our well settled `raise or waive rule,' a litigant must make a timely and appropriate objection during the lower court proceedings before this Court will indulge the issue on appeal. State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541, 546 (R.I. 2004). [15] [A]ssignments of error must be alleged with sufficient particularity so it will call the trial justice's attention to the basis of the objection. Id. at 546-47.