Opinion ID: 1733341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Coles.

Text: Defendant Coles, in his second issue on appeal, claims that his in-court identification by the complaining witness was prejudicially tainted by a prior photographic show-up and line-up. We disagree. We first note that the defendant failed to move for suppression of the complaining witness's in-court identification and failed to object to the witness's identification testimony. Thus, the question of suggestiveness is not properly preserved for review by this Court. People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 626-627; 218 NW2d 655 (1974). In addition, our examination of this record does not indicate that the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Lee, supra, p 626. Further, we note that there was an adequate independent basis for the complaining witness's identification. The witness had observed the defendant at close range for at least a minute and watched from the back of the brightly lit store for approximately ten minutes or more as the defendant operated the cash register while his confederates waited on customers. In light of the foregoing, we find no error pertaining to this issue which requires reversal. Defendant Coles next argues that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury when his codefendant pled guilty after participating in the jury selection and the trial court failed to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte. This specific issue was not raised or argued by the defendant in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals. However, Judge T.M. BURNS raised the issue on his own initiative by way of dissent in the Court of Appeals decision, and the Court of Appeals majority responded to it and found no error. We agree. Defendant did not request a cautionary instruction and, although we agree that it is better practice for the trial court to give an instruction explaining that the fact that one defendant has admitted his guilt must have no bearing on the question of whether the remaining defendant is guilty, there is no requirement that an instruction of this type must be given sua sponte. We find that no manifest injustice resulted from the failure to give such an instruction. Lastly, defendant Coles argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney's failure to move for a mistrial or request a cautionary instruction with regard to the identification procedures and testimony and his codefendant's midtrial guilty plea. We disagree. We find no error of a magnitude to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the principles announced by this Court in People v Garcia, 398 Mich 250; 247 NW2d 547 (1976), reh den 399 Mich 1041 (1977).