Opinion ID: 1591818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: suppression of photographic identification

Text: In his first assignment of error, Gibbs contends that the use of the photographic array was so unduly suggestive that his suppression motion should have been sustained. In determining the correctness of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, the Supreme Court will uphold the trial court's findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Garcia, 235 Neb. 53, 453 N.W.2d 469 (1990); State v. Sardeson, 231 Neb. 586, 437 N.W.2d 473 (1989). In making this determination, the Supreme Court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence, but, rather, recognizes the trial court as the finder of fact and takes into consideration that the trial court has observed the witnesses testifying in regard to such motions. State v. Garcia, supra ; State v. Sardeson, supra . At the suppression hearing, Robert Mason testified as to the identification procedures used by Officer Wolf for the photographic array on December 16, 1980. Officer Wolf laid out five photographs on a table face up and asked Robert if he could identify any of the photos as being of a person at the scene. According to Robert's testimony, he was able to identify Gibbs from the burglary because he remembered Gibbs' face structure and his nose and eyes. With regard to the use of photographic arrays, this court has held that whether identification procedures were unduly suggestive and conducive to a substantial likelihood of irreparable mistaken identification is to be determined by a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the procedures. State v. Price, 229 Neb. 448, 427 N.W.2d 81 (1988), citing State v. Swoopes, 223 Neb. 914, 395 N.W.2d 500 (1986), which also held that an array of five photographs is sufficient to constitute a fair and adequate array when attempting to identify a single perpetrator. 223 Neb. at 918, 395 N.W.2d at 504. Gibbs claims the photographic array was unduly suggestive because, in the five photographs, Gibbs was the only individual depicted without facial hair. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the lack of facial hair was the method by which Robert Mason differentiated between the five photographs. Robert testified that he remembered Gibbs from the burglary because of Gibbs' face, nose, and eyes. He stated that he remembered Gibbs' nose because it was flared. Officer Wolf testified that Robert picked out Gibbs after looking at the photographs for a couple of minutes. An examination of the five photographs shows that Gibbs' dress, height, weight, age, and hairstyle in no way singled him out from the other four individuals. Even if the array had been improper, Robert's identification of Gibbs at trial was completely supported, independently, by Robert's observations at the time of the burglary. In that connection, the totality of circumstances supports a finding that the identification was based on his observation of Gibbs during the burglary and was the basis for the subsequent identification. See State v. Richard, 228 Neb. 872, 424 N.W.2d 859 (1988). There was no error in denying the motion to suppress.