Opinion ID: 1285642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Kendrick Davis's identification of appellant

Text: Appellant moved to suppress Kendrick Davis's identification on the grounds it was tainted by an unreliable hypnosis session and appellant was deprived of his right of confrontation. The trial judge denied the motion following a pre-trial hearing. Kendrick Davis, the surviving victim of the barbershop shootings, gave a description of the perpetrator to police the day of the murders. The next day, March 15, 1996, Davis worked with a forensic artist who developed a composite drawing based on Davis's description. On April 5, Davis was shown a photographic line-up with six subjects approximating the description he had given. He failed to identify any of them as the perpetrator. On May 14, Davis met with a hypnotist, Robert Sauer, who explained the procedure that would be used and introduced Davis to relaxation techniques. At a second session on May 21, Davis was accompanied by a police officer and a second forensic artist. Davis gave a description of the assailant and a second composite drawing was made. No pictures, other than the composite itself, or photographs were shown to Davis during the session. Five months later, on October 22, Davis was shown a second photographic line-up in which he identified appellant as the perpetrator. Detective Mead, who was present, testified Davis became very emotional when he saw appellant's photo and exclaimed he would never forget appellant's face. Appellant first contends Davis's identification was rendered unduly suggestive by the hypnosis session on May 21. An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Stewart, 275 S.C. 447, 272 S.E.2d 628 (1980). To determine the admissibility of an identification, the court must determine (1) whether the identification process was unduly suggestive and (2) if so, whether the out-of-court identification was nevertheless so reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification existed. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 540 S.E.2d 445 (2000). In this case, under the first prong, there is no evidence the hypnosis session rendered the identification process unduly suggestive. The transcript of the session reveals nothing coercive in the dialogue between Davis and the hypnotist. Appellant complains there is a ten-minute gap in the tape of the session during which suggestability violations, such as showing appellant's photograph, could have taken place. The hypnotist explained the ten-minute gap was caused by his inadvertent failure to turn on the volume at the beginning of the third tape while he was recording the session. Officer Mead, who accompanied Davis, testified that Davis was not shown any photographs and that the second composite was based entirely on Davis's description of the suspect. Finally, we have examined the composite drawing based on Davis's pre-hypnosis description and the one drawn during the hypnosis session and find them remarkably similar. Moreover, even if the procedure used was unduly suggestive, there is no substantial likelihood of misidentification under the second prong of the Neil v. Biggers analysis. The following factors are to be considered in evaluating the totality of the circumstances to determine the likelihood of a misidentification: (1) the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime (2) the witness's degree of attention (3) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Moore, supra . Here, Davis saw the perpetrator face-to-face in a welllit place for several minutes, Davis had a gun pointed at him at the time and was paying very close attention, his description consistently matched appellant, he expressed absolutely no doubt about his identification of appellant at the photographic line-up, and the time between the crime and the line-up was about seven months. Under these circumstances, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to suppress Davis's identification of appellant. Id. (decision to admit eyewitness identification is within trial judge's discretion); accord Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437 (4th Cir.1986) (consistency of eyewitness's description before, during, and after hypnosis provided ample basis for witness to testify before jury). Next, appellant contends the use of post-hypnotic evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under State v. Evans, 316 S.C. 303, 450 S.E.2d 47 (1994). To determine whether the admission of post-hypnotic testimony violates the Confrontation Clause, we must consider whether the hypnosis affected the witness's ability to testify and respond freely to cross-examination. Id. ( citing McQueen v. Garrison, 814 F.2d 951, 958 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944, 108 S.Ct. 332, 98 L.Ed.2d 359 (1987)). In determining whether post-hypnotic testimony is independent of the dangers associated with hypnosis, we will consider whether (1) the witness's trial testimony was generally consistent with pre-hypnotic statements (2) considerable circumstantial evidence corroborated the witness's post-hypnotic testimony and (3) the witness's responses to examination by counsel generally were not the automatic responses of a pre-conditioned mental process. Davis's identification of appellant at trial was consistent with his pre-hypnotic description of the assailant. The identification was corroborated by evidence appellant was in possession of the murder weapon at the time of the barbershop murders and that he confessed to both Bernard Johnson and Dan Temple. Davis was cross-examined extensively about his identification and admitted there were some details he could not recall, such as whether the assailant was wearing gloves or what kind of shoes he had on. His responses to questioning give no indication of being pre-conditioned. Further, appellant presented expert testimony and fully argued the unreliability of Davis's post-hypnotic testimony to the jury. In conclusion, under State v. Evans , there is no Confrontation Clause violation and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing Davis's identification.