Opinion ID: 2543636
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Opportunity Of Witness To View The Actor During The Event

Text: ¶ 30 Under this factor, pertinent circumstances include the length of time the witness viewed the actor; the distance between the witness and the actor; whether the witness could view the actor's face; the lighting or lack of it; whether there were distracting noises or activity during the observation; and any other circumstances affecting the witness's opportunity to observe the actor. Id. at 782.
¶ 31 Following the testimony of Contreras, Livolsi, Channing Jones, and Pittman at the pretrial suppression hearing, the trial court found that the length of time of face to face or close contact observation [of the actor by the witnesses] ranged from one to three minutes to potentially up to ten minutes. Thus, the eyewitnesses in this case viewed the actor for a comparable or greater length of time and at a generally closer distance than the eyewitness in Ramirez, who claimed at various times to have viewed the actor for `a few seconds' or `a second' to `a minute' or longer, and whose testimony that he viewed the actor from ten feet conflicted with that of another witness who indicated the distance actually was up to thirty feet. Id.
¶ 32 Although the trial court found that the actor's face was clearly observed by each of the four witnesses, there is no dispute that the actor's disguise obscured certain details of his face. Specifically, the sunglasses covered the actor's eyes and part of the side of his face, and the fake mustache obscured his upper lip. On the other hand, the disguise did not prevent the witnesses from viewing other parts of the actor's face, such as his lower lip, nose, cheeks, and the lower portion of the forehead. ¶ 33 In Ramirez, a scarf cover[ed] most of the actor's face. Id. at 776. As a result of this disguise, the eyewitness could observe only the actor's eyes, and only well enough to note that they were small. Id. at 782. Thus, the disguise in the instant case obscured less of the actor's face than the disguise in Ramirez.
¶ 34 Additionally, the trial court noted that the witnesses viewed the disguised robber under the sunlight of a summer morning and under office lighting. The lighting conditions in Ramirez were less conducive to reliable observations: the observations occurred at nighttime in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant. Id. at 776, 783 (noting that although witnesses generally described lighting as good, on occasion[] they described it as poor and stated that the gunman was in a shadowy area).
¶ 35 Finally, in both this case and Ramirez, the presence of a second actor partially diverted the eyewitnesses' attention. ¶ 36 Overall, then, the relevant circumstances indicate that Contreras, Livolsi, Channing Jones, and Pittman had a better opportunity than the Ramirez witness to observe the actor at issue.