Opinion ID: 4452428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EIRA Claim

Text: In addition to the constitutional claim, there is also before us a statutory claim that the events of the 29 February 2016 meeting between eyewitnesses Lopez and Alvarez and Iris Smith violated the EIRA, which defendant asserts in the alternative if we were to reverse the Court of Appeals on the due process claim and the State brings to us by way of a petition for discretionary review. The State contends that the EIRA explicitly only addresses the actions of law enforcement officers and therefore -28- STATE V. MALONE Opinion of the Court is inapplicable to this case because the allegedly impermissibly suggestive identification procedures here were carried out by an employee of the District Attorney’s office. Because the Court of Appeals stated in dicta that the EIRA applies to all eyewitness identification procedures, the State argues this Court should clarify the law. Defendant urges us to take a more comprehensive view of the purpose of EIRA, and, to remand for consideration of defendant’s EIRA claim if we do not affirm the majority on his constitutional claim. It is a question of first impression for this Court, but one that we do not need to address at this time because of our disposition of defendant’s constitutional claim. Our holding here is that, while the identification procedures used by Ms. Smith in the days before trial were impermissibly suggestive, the relevant in-court identification was of independent origin and sufficiently reliable; thus, there is nothing further to be added by concluding that the EIRA does or does not apply.