Opinion ID: 1213091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: identification on a one-to-one show up

Text: The pre-identification of appellant by Grimes on a one-to-one show up raises issues under United States v. Wade [15] and Stovall v. Denno. [16] In Wade, the court pointed out the inherent dangers and unfairness in confrontations for identification. In Stovall, the court held that the practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a lineup, has been widely condemned. There is always the ever present danger that an eye witness traumatized by the experience of a recent crime is likely to look upon a suspect caught by the police and in its custody differently in a one-to-one show up than in a lineup, and that such eye witness may be the victim of unconscious or overt pressures. But, recognizing the mysteries of perceptions and recognitions, we believe that prompt confrontations under proper circumstances will provide fairness by assuring reliability and expeditious release of innocent suspects. The question we face is whether the procedure used in the pre-trial identification of appellant was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that appellant was denied due process. Whether due process violation exists depends on the totality of circumstances surrounding the identification. In State v. Padilla, 57 Haw. 150, 552 P.2d 357 (1976), we adopted the factors of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972) to determine whether under the totality of circumstances, the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive. These factors were: 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 time of the crime and confrontation. We note again that appellant was not identified by Grimes by face; he was identified by his clothing and physical characteristics. Parker was, however, positively identified by face, by his physical characteristics, and by the clothing he was wearing. [17] Although Grimes had only a few moments to view the suspects before they fled, he was able to see Parker's face. Grimes testified that the light from the outside of his apartment was very bright, which enabled him to see Parker's face clearly and to unequivocably identify Parker; he was able to see what the suspects were wearing and to note their physical characteristics; his report to the police on their description was substantially accurate; and there was no undue coercion or prejudicial remarks made by the police to influence Grimes in his identification. The show-up identification was held within 15-20 minutes of the crime when Grimes' mind's eye was fresh and vivid; both suspects were not handcuffed; and the presence of four policemen at the scene was not unnecessarily suggestive. We hold that the one-to-one show-up procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification and did not deny appellant due process of law.