Opinion ID: 1688754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress a suggestive line-up and pictures thereof in which the appellant was a participant.

Text: Appellant complains that the testimony of William Clark, Herbert Smith, Freddie Watson, Douglas Jones, Jr. and Mitsi Harris was impermissibly suggestive, and should have been suppressed. Watson and Clark were not called as witnesses at the trial. Smith testified that prior to a lineup in Butler, Alabama, the witnesses had been instructed not to discuss the case among themselves. They were handed a form to fill out and to indicate on the form whether they could or could not identify any of the participants. They were taken individually into the courtroom (where the lineup stood). Each of the participants was dressed alike. Smith testified he identified # 1 in the lineup as being in the store on December 4; that # 1 was the man who had waited on him, and was Johnson the appellant; that no one suggested in any manner whom he should select; that he had been able to observe the appellant in the store at least three to five minutes; and that he had not previously identified anyone. Jones also viewed the lineup in Butler, Alabama, and he identified appellant as the person he saw in the Super Stop on December 4. He did not know any of the participants in the lineup and he was positive appellant was the man he observed behind the counter. The appellant was not over three to four feet away from him and he observed appellant over two minutes in the store; and his attention was particularly attracted by the blood on the jacket slung over appellant's shoulder. Harris testified that she was working in the store next door to the Super Stop and observed appellant walk in front of her place of employment and get into a yellow Ford Torino. She described the clothes he was wearing and she identified appellant from the photographic lineup. Harris identified appellant in the courtroom as the one she saw on December 4, as did Smith and Jones. Tommy Hill was called as a witness and positively identified Johnson as the man he saw on December 4 (Jack Amison also). No objection was interposed to their testimony and they did not view any of the lineups. In Bankston v. State, 391 So.2d 1005 (Miss. 1980), the Court said: In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that even if the pretrial identification procedure had been unnecessarily suggestive the identification did not have to be excluded if upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification. The Court set out five factors to be used in analyzing the totality of circumstances. These factors include: (1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) The witness's degree of attention; (3) The accuracy of his prior description of the criminal; (4) The level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and (5) The time between the crime and the confrontation. (432 U.S. at 110-14, 97 S.Ct. at 2250-53, 53 L.Ed.2d at 151, 153, 154). 391 So.2d at 1008. Under the test expressed above, we are of the opinion that the lower court did not commit error or abuse its discretion, in declining to suppress the lineup pictures and identification evidence.