Opinion ID: 2244925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The February 5 show-up identification involving Jill Barkley only.

Text: As suggested from the earlier discussion, Jill Barkley first identified defendant as one of the shooters at a one person show-up at the police station. This occurred on February 5, 1994ten days prior to the six person lineup at which she and others would separately identify defendant as one of the assailants. In the earlier proceeding, she was asked to look at a lone suspect (defendant) through one-way glass and at that time positively identified the man in the room as one of the men who fired into the vehicle in which she was a passenger. In addition to the arguments above aimed more broadly at the second lineup in which Jill Barkley participated, defendant asserts in particular that her testimony should be excluded because of the inherently suggestive nature of the initial one-on-one identification. Wethington, 560 N.E.2d at 501. Defendant asserts that the initial one-on-one show-up irrevocably tainted Jill Barkley's later police lineup identification as well as her in-court identification. We need not decide this issue, however. Errors in the admission of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless unless they affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Ind.Trial Rule 61; McClain v. State, 675 N.E.2d 329, 331 (Ind.1996). Even if Jill Barkley's testimony should have been excluded, the failure to do so could not have been prejudicial error in light of the fact that four other witnesses identified defendant as one of the men who fired gunshots into McCloud's vehicle and two other witnesses placed him in Anderson, Indiana at the time of the shooting. Any alleged error relating only to Jill Barkley's identification testimony was therefore harmless.