Opinion ID: 2062660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impermissibly Suggestive Identification

Text: Linthicum claims his identification as the robber was impermissibly suggestive in violation of due process. The procedure was unduly suggestive, he argues, because no exigent circumstances warranted the one-person show up. Linthicum suggests that a photographic array or a lineup should have been used. While an array or a lineup may be less suggestive, not every one-person show up violates due process. We have permitted confrontations between eyewitnesses and suspects shortly after the commission of a crime because it is valuable to have witnesses view a suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in their minds. Lamb v. State (1984), Ind., 462 N.E.2d 1025, 1027. To determine whether a particular identification is impermissibly suggestive, we consider if there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification in light of all the circumstances. Hamlet v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 715, 720. The likelihood of misidentification in Linthicum's case is infinitesimal. Night cashier Hatfield saw the robber case the store before entering, she saw him walk around inside the store, and she talked to him for five minutes before he committed the robbery. When Detective Robinson and Linthicum entered the store later, Hatfield exclaimed That's him! She refused to walk any closer to the door to identify Linthicum. Detective Robinson noted by the expression on Hatfield's face that she recognized Linthicum. The only evidence of suggestiveness was a statement made by Linthicum at the suppression hearing. He claimed that Detective Robinson said, And this is him, isn't it? or Isn't this him? to Hatfield before she could identify Linthicum. Both Robinson and Hatfield denied that the detective had an opportunity to speak before her own exclamation. Other than his self-serving statement, Linthicum presents no evidence to indicate that the identification was tainted. The one-person show up after the crime was not a due process violation, and the trial court did not err when it allowed Hatfield's identification of Linthicum.