Opinion ID: 1145134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: identification of viveros

Text: At trial, the prosecutor first introduced testimony of Mrs. Johnson relating to her pre-trial identification of Viveros. Mrs. Johnson subsequently made an in-court identification of Viveros. As to the pre-trial identification, Viveros argues that the procedure used by the police in obtaining Mrs. Johnson's identification was totally unnecessary and extremely suggestive. He urges the Alaska Supreme Court to adopt a per se test for the exclusion of evidence relating to pre-trial identifications. The essence of this strict exclusionary rule would be that unnecessarily suggestive pre-trial identifications would be suppressed regardless of reliability. The purpose would be to deter the police from using such techniques. As to the in-court identification, Viveros argues that it is not free from the taint of the unconstitutional pre-trial identification.
Viveros argues that the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive for a number of reasons. First, he claims that he was the only person of Spanish or Mexican descent among the five photographs assembled by the police. When Mrs. Johnson and her daughter examined the photographs, they were looking for someone that was Spanish looking. Consequently, in his view, the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive because it failed to include other persons with a Spanish or Mexican appearance. Second, Viveros argues that his photograph stood out among the other five because it was darker than the rest and it had a white line running diagonally across it. He implies that the darker photograph would emphasize the defendant's dark complexion and unshaven appearance. Third, Viveros argues that Carla, Mrs. Johnson's daughter, saw the five pictures prior to her mother and informed her that the man they had seen at Fred Meyer's was included in the photographs. Therefore, Mrs. Johnson would have assumed that the robber was included among the photographs. Finally, Viveros argues that the lineup was suggestive because Mrs. Johnson was under the assumption that all the photographs were of armed robbery suspects. After much prodding by defense counsel, Officer Jansen, Mrs. Johnson and Carla all agreed that only one of the photographs was of a Mexican or Spanish male. One photograph appeared to be of a Native, according to the witnesses' testimony. The others appeared to be white. The photograph of Viveros has a white line across it, and it is dark. However, another photograph has a large blotch in the upper lefthand corner and other photographs have dark backgrounds. At the suppression hearing, the trial judge concluded that [t]here is no evidence in my opinion to support there was anything suggestive in these photos. I've had lots of experience on the bench in looking at photos and also I defy anyone except an anthropologist after looking at these pictures to determine from them the ethnic background or  of any of these  of any of these parties, whether they're Mexican, Spanish-American or otherwise. They're all dark pictures... . We agree that the photographic lineup was not suggestive, for the same reasons given by the trial judge. Moreover, any element of suggestiveness that may have been inherent in the pre-trial identification procedure was overcome by conclusive evidence that established that Mrs. Johnson's identification of Viveros was reliable. [1] The evidence was uncontradicted that Mrs. Johnson recognized Viveros immediately upon his entry into the liquor store, and later when presented with his photograph, because she had gotten a lengthy view of him when she stood in a checkout line behind him a few days before the robbery. [2]
Because we have concluded that the pre-trial identification was proper, it is unnecessary to consider whether the in-court identification was permissible in the wake of an impermissible pre-trial identification. See Cox v. State, 575 P.2d 297, 304 (Alaska 1978). This is not a case where an improper pre-trial procedure has lead to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Gould v. State, 579 P.2d 535, 537 (Alaska 1978) (footnote and citation omitted).