Opinion ID: 339401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: pre-trial photo identification

Text: 71 Appellant Stephenson contends that the court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of LAPD Officer Murphy who identified Stephenson as a participant in the alleged criminal activities of March 8 and 9. He asserts this testimony was given after an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification procedure and that reversal is required under Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). 72 We evaluate this claim in light of surrounding circumstances. United States v. Valdivia, 492 F.2d 199, 209 (9th Cir. 1973). Simmons prescribes examination of two considerations in determining whether pre-trial photo identification is impermissibly suggestive. First, was its use necessary? Although the record does not answer this question directly, we assume from the fact that Stephenson had been arrested well before the use of the photo spread that it was unnecessary. This is not, however, a per se ground for reversal. Valdivia, 492 F.2d at 210. 73 The second consideration set forth in Simmons is whether there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Four factors outlined by this court may be relevant to this determination: 74 (1) The length of time and the conditions under which the witness observed the accused. 75 (2) The conduct of the law enforcement officers which may have focused attention on a single suspect. 76 (3) Presence of other witnesses at the time of the challenged identification and the prejudicial effect of one witness' opinion on another's recollection. 77 (4) The similarity of description given by the witness immediately after the crime to the characteristics of the individual whom the witness later identifies. Valdivia, 492 F.2d at 210. 78 Murphy, an experienced law enforcement officer, had an opportunity to observe Stephenson on both days for more than a half hour. He was subsequently presented with a photo spread of nine photographs, one of which was that of Stephenson. Five pictures were of other defendants in this case. This procedure does not suggest that the law enforcement officers unduly focused the witness' attention on a single suspect. No other witness was present at Murphy's identification and there was therefore no improper effect on the recollection of the other witness, Officer Woempner. The fourth factor is inapplicable to this appeal. 79 We conclude that Stephenson has failed to show that the photograph identification procedure used in identifying him was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.