Opinion ID: 1926686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion to Suppress the Identification

Text: The defendant also maintained that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to suppress the identification of defendant by Hamel. Two challenges to the identification procedure were raised. The defendant alleged first that the police officer prompted Hamel to be absolutely sure in his identification, thereby rendering the procedures impermissibly suggestive. He next contended that the failure of the police to properly authenticate the photo array, by initialing or otherwise memorializing the photograph at the time of the identification, rendered the evidence unreliable. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress an identification that was allegedly tainted by an unduly suggestive procedure, we carry out a two-step analysis. State v. Andrade, 657 A.2d 538, 541 (R.I.1995). First, we must determine whether the totality of circumstances discloses procedures that were `so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that it constituted a denial of due process of law.' Id. (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 104, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2248, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 147 (1977)). Only if we determine that the procedures were unduly suggestive do we proceed to the second step of our analysis and assess the reliability of the identification. Andrade, 657 A.2d at 541. Actually, [e]ven if a court were to find that the procedures were unduly suggestive, admission of tainted identification testimony does not violate a defendant's due process rights, so long as the identification `possesses sufficient aspects of reliability.' State v. Vanover, 721 A.2d 430, 436 (R.I.1998) (quoting Manson, 432 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 2249, 53 L.Ed.2d at 149). With these principles in mind, our inspection of the photo array presented to the eyewitness and our review of the procedures surrounding its presentation support the trial justice's finding that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive. There was evidence before the trial court that the police officers did not attempt to influence Hamel's identification. In fact, the trial justice described the array as both a model of adherence to constitutional principles of fairness and due process as well as one of the better displays I have seen in my 21 years on the bench, as [it] relates to an objective offering to a witness of six people with similar characteristics. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the procedures surrounding the identification process were not unduly suggestive. Thus, we need not reach the reliability prong of the analysis. In summary, therefore, we deny and dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, to which we return the papers in the case.