Opinion ID: 1841963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of Witness Identification

Text: The defendant claims that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress, as police used a suggestive identification procedure to coerce Wanda Brown into identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. As a general matter, the defendant has the burden of proof on a motion to suppress an out-of-court identification. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 703(D). To suppress an identification, a defendant must first prove that the identification procedure was suggestive. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 738 (La.1984). An identification procedure is suggestive if, during the procedure, the witness's attention is unduly focused on the defendant. State v. Robinson, 386 So.2d 1374, 1377 (La.1980). However, even when suggestiveness of the identification process is proven by the defendant or presumed by the court, the defendant must also show that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure. Prudholm, 446 So.2d at 738. The Supreme Court held in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2254, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), that despite the existence of a suggestive pretrial identification, an identification may be permissible if there does not exist a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Under Manson, the factors which courts must examine to determine, from the totality of the circumstances, whether the suggestiveness presents a substantial likelihood of misidentification include: 1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) the witness' 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. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114-15, 97 S.Ct. at 2254. In the instant case, appellate counsel points out that Brown met with a detective for at least an hour before she identified the defendant. Although police subsequently memorialized Brown's identification of the defendant by obtaining an audiotaped statement, they did so 18 minutes after her initial identification, and over an hour-and-a-quarter after the beginning of her interview. The defendant also points out that the detective conducting the interview indicated to Brown that the suspected perpetrator would be in one of the photo arrays. However, at the suppression hearing, Brown testified that the detective at issue did not tell her which photo to choose, and that she identified the defendant on her own. Likewise, the detective who conducted the identification testified that he did not inform Brown which photo to pick, and that Brown chose the defendant's photo of her own free will without any of his guidance. Upon the trial court's review of the lineup, she found it appropriately compiled. The court went on deny the motion to suppress, after issuing the following findings: [The lineup] was all black males of approximately the same age, approximately the same hairstyle. They all have moustaches, and there's nothing distinguishing about any of them that would make one pick out one over the other. I also believe that it was presented to Ms. Brown in an appropriate fashion. She indicated she was not forced, coerced or told which one to pick. She wrote on the back [of the array] that number two [killed the victim], and the officer also indicated that he did force, coerce, [or] promise anything to her. Given the above, the trial court has made a finding of fact based on testimony and an evaluation of credibility. Specifically, the trial court found credible the testimony that Brown was not forced, coerced, or told which photo to choose. In these circumstances, a reviewing court owes that determination great deference and may not overturn it in the absence of manifest error. See, e.g., State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198, 222 (La.1993) (a trial judge's ruling [on a fact question], based on conclusions of credibility and weight of the testimony, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no evidence to support the ruling.). Accordingly, the defendant has not shown that police conducted a suggestive identification, and this claim fails.