Opinion ID: 2222943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: detailed facts

Text: IDENTIFICATION ISSUES This crime involves a savage assault on a bar waitress with intent to commit murder. The victim had seen the defendant four or five times at the bar where she worked. On the night of the assault, the victim had seen but was not with the defendant in the bar. The accused left the bar prior to the last call. The victim left with a Mr. Whitman after closing and had coffee with him at her home until 3:30 when she left to see another male friend. Mr. Whitman said he saw a red car with fins and no headlights containing only the driver execute a U-turn and then follow the victim. En route, the victim testified she stopped or was stopped. Thereafter she was personally struck, driven away in a red car with fins, and later assaulted. People's proofs included evidence of the victim's fingerprints on defendant's car, blood of her type on the car's seat and matching paint smears in damaged areas on the victim's and defendant's cars. There was also testimony placing the defendant and his car at a gas station near the victim's home just after 2 a.m. PRE-SURGERY When found injured in a field the following morning, an ambulance was called and the ambulance driver, while preparing the victim for transport to the hospital, asked whether she had been in an accident and the victim responded uh uh (no); whether she had been beaten  uh huh (yes); whether she had been raped  uh huh (yes). The victim was taken to Midland Hospital. Deputy Sheriff Gransden had been at the scene and followed the ambulance back to the hospital and was in the emergency room while the victim was being examined before surgery. He questioned her and her responses were by nodding her head yes or no and by writing on the back of a surgical glove envelope. She nodded no when asked if she knew assailant's name. She wrote her name on a pad. Asked again about the assailant she wrote he comes in where I work. Aladdin Bar Bay City. The victim was taken to X-ray before surgery. Present in the X-ray room were a nurse and the ambulance driver. The ambulance driver questioned the victim about her assailant further and her responses were by nodding her head yes or no. He asked whether he were white  no; colored  no; Mexican  no; Indian?  here she responded by voice and had to say the word several times before the ambulance driver and the nurse present both understood. The word was Indian: It was a positive, she said Indian and she was very affirmative about the negatives (referring to white, colored, etc.) if you understand what I mean. She shook her head as best she could when I asked the questions. The ambulance driver continued to ask whether the assailant had brown hair?  no; black hair?  yes; whether they had been friends?  no. POST SURGERY MEETING 8:15 P.M. The victim was taken to surgery sometime after the questioning in the X-ray room and there was no further communication with her until 8:15 that evening after surgery in her hospital room. Present for the questioning were Deputy Sheriff Gransden, Sheriff's Matron Theisen, the prosecutor and a nurse. The victim was unable to talk but could nod her head and give gestures with her hands. Matron Theisen was there to take notes and later testified as to the questioning. Deputy Sheriff Gransden went through a series of names picked at random (including defendant's name) to see if she could pick out any certain name. (Frederick, James, Jim.) She was also asked Anderson but the record is unclear as to her response to that. When the name Frank was mentioned there was a definite response and she waved her hands around. Asked if she saw the car she nodded yes. Asked whether attacked in her car she shook her head no. Asked whether it was a pickup truck she shook her head no. She nodded yes when asked if it was a car. Deputy Gransden then went through four colors of cars, blue, black, white, red. She nodded yes to red. Deputy Gransden went through the different makes of cars and when he mentioned Dodge she indicated yes. Apparently by the same process it was established that the assailant was in the neighborhood of 6 feet, somewhere around 200 pounds and an Indian. Asked whether she could identify the person who attacked her she nodded her head yes. There were no pictures shown to the victim at this 8:15 meeting. POST SURGERY MEETING 11 P.M.  FIRST PHOTO LINEUP The defendant was arrested at about 9:30 p.m. and between 10 and 10:30 a black-and-white polaroid photograph was taken of him by a Bay City officer. Deputy Gransden drove to Bay City, picked up the picture and returned to Midland, having called ahead to have Matron Theisen select other pictures from the files for a photo showup. Deputy Gransden and Matron Theisen returned to the victim's hospital room at 11 p.m. with six pictures, including the polaroid of defendant. Defendant's picture was a polaroid shot with perforated edges and depicted a single head-on view. The other five pictures were standard mug shots depicting front and side views. Each picture had prison numbers superimposed over the front view and an arrest card was attached to each picture except that of the defendant. Before being shown the pictures, the victim was told there was a suspect and his picture was included in those she would be shown. The pictures were shown to the victim individually with defendant's picture shown last. The victim identified defendant as her assailant. DAY AFTER SURGERY  SECOND PHOTO-LINEUP On the following day, the prosecutor conducted a lineup with the same pictures shown individually in the same sequence. The victim again selected defendant's photograph as pictorial identification of her assailant. THREE DAYS PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY EXAM  THIRD PHOTO-LINEUP Three days prior to the preliminary examination a third photo lineup was conducted by Officer Whipple for the purported reason of making a positive identification. On this occasion the photos were given to her in folders. Counsel had been appointed after the second lineup but the third lineup was accomplished without notice to counsel. On this occasion there were 12 pictures shown her, all except that of defendant being front and side views while that of defendant was the same polaroid photograph shown earlier. Each photograph, including that of defendant, had paper covering the place where prison identification numbers could have been seen. On this occasion the victim again identified Anderson. Officer Whipple said the reason he made folders as described was that it would have been suggestive otherwise. TRIAL Timely and continuous objections by defendant's counsel to the victim's in-court identification were made at the preliminary examination, pretrial motions and by oral trial objections. On the motion to suppress there was testimony by Dr. Russell Leach, a psychiatrist. A hypothetical question recited the facts up to and until the first photo show but excluded the fact that the victim had previously seen defendant in the bar numerous times. The doctor testified that it was highly probable that the first identification was suggestive; that as to the second identification it was possible that it would be highly probable to be suggestive. As to the in-court identification, however, the testimony is less clear: Q. And, some twenty days later, an in-court identification of the man as the man who had, in fact, attacked her, a man who she had seen time and again, a face she would never forget, would you say that this in-court identification was the product of suggestion?
SECURITY PRECAUTIONS ISSUE During testimony as to matching paint smears on the victim's and defendant's autos, the jury and the court moved to the courthouse parking lot where both cars were. To assure defendant's presence without creating prejudice the trial judge ordered the defendant be taken down to the parking lot before the jury came out, his handcuffs removed, and that he be put in a car with the window down. Apparently the jury came to the courthouse parking lot too soon, and, rather than make a display of removing the handcuffs, the officer placed the defendant in the rear seat of the automobile with his arms handcuffed behind his back. HOSPITAL PHOTOS ISSUE Over objection of defendant four photos taken by the hospital for teaching purposes were introduced in evidence depicting the victim on the operating table. There had previously been oral testimony as to victim's condition. Defendant claimed the only issue in the case was identification of the assailant and the photos were immaterial. On oral argument the people admit that the only purpose for using the photos was to show the victim's condition in order to establish that she would have died without treatment. They contend, however, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the pictures. Defendant was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to life. The Court of Appeals affirmed, People v Anderson, 29 Mich App 578 (1971). We granted leave, 384 Mich 838 (1971), primarily to consider the issues relating to eyewitness identification.