Opinion ID: 1593087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of the in-court identification.

Text: Defendant argues that the in-court identification by the store clerk was tainted by pretrial photographic and lineup identifications. The argument is that there was in effect a tainted chain of identification, which commenced with an improper photographic identification; that as a result of this identification, the lineup identification was tainted; and that the in-court identification was similarly tainted. Particular reliance is placed on Simmons v. United States, [7] wherein the Supreme Court of the United States discussed the problems inherent in photographic identification. In unanimously affirming Simmons' conviction, the court said: . . . The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method's potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement. Instead, we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. [8] The defendant here has not proven [9] the respect in which the photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive. The grocery store clerk was shown groups of photos on four occasions. Each group, varying from two photos to 15, contained a photo of the defendant. This photographic identification process is quite similar to the one found proper in Simmons. [10] The defendant has made no showing that the particular way the photos were presented to the witness was impermissibly suggestive. We do not find that the procedure was impermissibly suggestive on the basis of defendant's assertion that the grocery clerk had only fifteen to twenty-three seconds at the time of the crime to view the robbers. While such a period of time may seem short in some instances, to an individual faced with armed robbers, that same period might well seem to be an eternity. Defendant also places emphasis on the fact that the clerk in the grocery store indicated that the height of defendant was between 5' 0 and 5' 3, while other witnesses testified that the defendant was approximately 5'10. There is no evidence other than these assertions as to defendant's actual height. In any event, this discrepancy in testimony goes only to the credibility of the witnesses, not to the admissibility of their statements. [11] The defendant also fails to show in the record wherein the lineup was unfair in any respect. The defendant, having failed to carry his burden to show that either the out-of-court-photographic identification or the lineup identification was improper, the state had no further burden to establish that the later in-court identification was independent and untainted by the out-of-court identifications.