Opinion ID: 1916671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suppression of the Identification Testimony.

Text: The defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 4 to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion to suppress the lineup identification and the in-court identification. The lineup consisted of six black men in prison garb, including the defendant. Defense counsel was present. Mrs. Boudreaux was seated facing the men in the lineup, looking through a one-way glass partition. As Mrs. Boudreaux faced the lineup, the defendant's position was fourth from her right. From the perspective of the lineup participants, defendant was third from their right. After viewing them, the witness identified her assailant as the third from the right. Captain Bergeron, a police officer present at the lineup, then inquired if she knew her left from her right. She then indicated that she meant the defendant. Defendant contends that the conversation between the police officer and the victim was improper and so impermissibly suggestive that it also made the in-court identification inadmissible. He relies upon United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). This argument lacks merit. Although there was a flaw in the initial communication at the lineup, the witness unquestionably identified the defendant as the one who committed the crime. The police officer's inquiry did no more than seek clarification of her statement. Assuming arguendo, however, that the lineup identification was faulty, the incourt identification was properly admitted. It is well established that a tainted pre-trial lineup does not bar an in-court identification if the in-court identification has a basis independent of the lineup. United States v. Wade, supra; State v. Chambers, 263 La. 1080, 270 So.2d 514 (1972); State v. Hall, 261 La. 777, 260 So.2d 913 (1972); State v. Jones, 261 La. 422, 259 So.2d 899 (1972); State v. Singleton, 253 La. 18, 215 So.2d 838 (1968); State v. Allen, 251 La. 237, 203 So.2d 705 (1967). In the present case, the State did not rely upon the pretrial lineup and offered no evidence of it. Defense counsel raised the subject during cross-examination. The victim testified that she had seen the defendant on prior occasions. At the time of the crime, she saw him faceto-face, in plain light, for about ten minutes. The record discloses that the identification was based upon her observation at the time of the crime. [1] We conclude that in-court identification was properly admitted.