Opinion ID: 416515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the length of time between the crime and the [pretrial] confrontation.

Text: 38 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); United States v. Field, 625 F.2d at 866. These five indicia of reliability must be balanced by the reviewing court against the corrupting effect of the suggestive pretrial identification procedure to determine whether the in-court identification should have been admitted. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253; United States v. Field, 625 F.2d at 866. 39 Applying the five-factor analysis to the facts of the present case, we find that Bass had a good opportunity to view the robber at the time of the crime. She was the victim of the robbery and testified that she had taken a long look at the robber during the robbery. Being the target of the robbery, her degree of attention was undoubtedly high. Her actions in giving the robber two clips of bait bills, one containing a dye pack and the other activating the surveillance camera, demonstrates her alertness at the time of the robbery. Bass' prior description of the robber was detailed and fairly accurate. She correctly described the robber as a white male, about 55 to 60, about six feet tall, stout with a baker's belly, wearing a red baseball cap, green sweater, jeans, and horn-rimmed glasses. Only her description of the robber's shirt was incorrect. Although her level of certainty in identifying Barrett at the pretrial photographic spread was not high, she did select Barrett from among nine similar photographs. Finally, the length of time between the robbery and Bass' pretrial photographic-spread identification was only two weeks. 40 Weighing these five strong indicia of reliability against the minimal suggestiveness of the pretrial photographic spread, we are convinced that Bass' in-court identification was sufficiently reliable to justify its admission. 2. Lemon's Lay-Opinion Identification 41 As part of her testimony at trial, Lemon, Barrett's girl friend, identified Barrett as the person in the bank surveillance photograph. Barrett argues that the admission of this testimony violated Fed.R.Evid. 701(b) which limits lay-opinion testimony to that which is helpful to ... the determination of a fact in issue. Barrett contends that any need for Lemon's lay-opinion identification was totally obviated by the fact that the jury had before it two photographs of Barrett with a beard and mustache as well as Barrett himself to compare against the surveillance photographs. He therefore claims that Lemon's lay-opinion identification was not helpful to the determination of the identification issue. 42 We disagree. Barrett, like the robber in the surveillance photograph, had a full beard and mustache around the time of the robbery. Since that time, his appearance had substantially changed as he was clean-shaven during the trial. We find that in view of Lemon's intimate acquaintance with Barrett when he had a beard and mustache, and the subsequent change in his appearance, Lemon's lay-opinion identification of Barrett was helpful to the determination of the identification issue as required by Rule 701. See United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.) (lay-opinion identification admissible under Rule 701 where defendant's appearance had significantly changed since time of robbery), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 365, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980). 43 We will not disturb the trial court's discretion to admit lay-opinion testimony under Rule 701 absent clear abuse. United States v. Butcher, 557 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir.1977). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of Lemon's lay-opinion identification under Rule 701. 44 Barrett also argues that the admission of Lemon's testimony violated Fed.R.Evid. 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We again apply the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, United States v. Hobson, 519 F.2d 765, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S.Ct. 283, 46 L.Ed.2d 261 (1975), and find Barrett's unfair-prejudice claim to be without merit. 3. Admission of Statements Made by Barrett 45 At trial, FBI Special Agent Renning testified to statements Barrett had made while being questioned about the robbery. Renning testified that Barrett said that he spent the major portion of the afternoon of June 5th, the date of the robbery, preparing for a fishing trip and that he shaved off his beard and mustache on June 4th, the day before the robbery. Barrett contends that these statements should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 17 46 We disagree. The trial court held a pretrial suppression hearing to determine the admissibility of the challenged statements. The trial court heard conflicting testimony from FBI agents Stewart and Renning on the one hand and Barrett on the other. 18 While acknowledging the difference in testimony, the court found that Barrett had his Miranda rights read to him in full. The court further found that Barrett was not in custody nor under arrest when he made the statements. 47 Findings of fact made at a suppression hearing will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Botero, 589 F.2d 430, 433 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2162, 60 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1979). In making its findings, the trial court credited the testimony of FBI agents Stewart and Renning over that of Barrett. This credited testimony provides support for the trial court's findings. We therefore hold that the factual finding of the trial court that Barrett was read his Miranda rights is not clearly erroneous and is entitled to our acceptance on appeal. See United States v. Coletta, 682 F.2d 820, 825 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1187, 75 L.Ed.2d 433 (1983); United States v. Dufur, 648 F.2d 512, 514 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 925, 101 S.Ct. 1378, 67 L.Ed.2d 355 (1981). 48 Applying the facts found by the district court, we conclude that Barrett's Miranda rights were not violated and that his statements were properly admitted. We do not reach the question of whether Barrett was not in custody at the time he made the statements, and thus was not entitled to any Miranda protection, Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Even assuming he was in custody and entitled to Miranda protection, he was advised of his rights under Miranda and waived them.