Opinion ID: 1567830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliability of Identification.

Text: ¶ 22. As for the reliability of Echols's identification, we first examine whether the photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive. [T]he practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a lineup, has been widely condemned. Roche v. State, 913 So.2d 306, 310-11 (Miss.2005) (quoting Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 443, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969)). See also Herrera v. Collins, 904 F.2d 944, 947 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1990) ([T]he showing of a single photograph is an inherently suggestive method of identification.) (emphasis added). ¶ 23. Furthermore, Echols indicated to the police that Christmas's name was actually Terrell. Notably, a man named Terrell White was apprehended after exiting the stolen black Avalanche and fleeing the scene, and the victim initially identified White as her attacker. There was also testimony that Terrell White resembled Christmas. ¶ 24. The United States Supreme Court has observed that the danger [of misidentification] will be increased if the police display to the witness only the picture of a single individual who generally resembles the person he saw. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253 (1968). Therefore we conclude that the initial identification of Christmas, by means of a single photograph, was impermissibly suggestive. ¶ 25. Once it is determined that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the Court must determine whether the identification was nonetheless reliable. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 411 (1972). Biggers sets forth the test for determining whether identification testimony is reliable despite the substantial likelihood of misidentification. The five Biggers factors are the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Roche, 913 So.2d at 311 (quoting Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375). ¶ 26. The trial judge considered four of the factors and found that they weighed in favor of admitting the identification testimony. When a trial court determines that such testimony is reliable under the Biggers test, this Court will not reverse unless there is a lack of substantial credible evidence supporting the trial judge's findings. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 138 (Miss.1991) (quoting Nicholson v. State, 523 So.2d 68, 71 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 27. First, the trial judge found that the 43-day lapse between the crime and the identification weighed in favor of the defendant. Then, he determined that Echols had ample opportunity to view the accused and that he was sufficiently attentive because, according to Echols's testimony, he was in close proximity to the defendant for roughly three hours. Finally, the trial judge determined that Echols's prior description that Christmas was the tall one was accurate and weighed in favor of the State. ¶ 28. We find that there was substantial credible evidence to support the trial court's order denying Christmas's motion to suppress the identification. Id. Based on Echols's testimony, he was within only a few feet of the defendant for a significant period of time. These facts support the trial court's finding that Echols had ample opportunity to view the defendant. While there was no testimony directly related to Echols's degree of attention, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in considering the foregoing facts to find that Echols was sufficiently attentive. Additionally, although the judge did not address the level of certainty, the testimony does indicate that Echols did not hesitate when identifying Christmas. ¶ 29. We disagree, however, with the trial judge's determination that Echols's description was accurate. Even though Christmas was tall, this very limited description is undeniably vague. Compare Biggers, 409 U.S. at 200, 93 S.Ct. 375 ([The victim's] description to the police, which included the assailant's approximate age, height, weight, complexion, skin texture, build, and voice, might not have satisfied Proust but was more than ordinarily thorough.). Nevertheless, in light of the other factors, the trial judge did not err in allowing the identification testimony despite the suggestive nature of the single photograph. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.