Opinion ID: 1818231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jointly reserved)

Text: Bills of Exceptions Nos. 15 and 16 concern Mr. Reiszner's identification of the defendant as the man who robbed him. Testimony of record with respect to the reservation of these bills is as follows: Q. Let me ask you this question Mr. Reiszner, can you at this time, based solely on your recollection of the robber as you remember him during the robbery, identify the person that robbed you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that person in the courtroom? A. Yes, sir. BY MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, at this point, we have to object and I ask that the jury be retired. BY THE COURT: Take the jury out please. [Colloquy] BY MR. DAVIS: We respectfully reserve a bill. We do this again when court opens up, when the jury is brought back in? BY MR. LAIRD: We are going to ask the question, you can do what you want. BY THE COURT: Bring the jury in. BY MR. LAIRD: Q. Mr. Reiszner, do you see the person in the courtroom that robbed you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you point him out, please? BY MR. DAVIS: At this point, I object your Honor on the basis of lack of proper foundation has notthere has not been a proper foundation laid for the identification. Number two that the identification of this witness is tainted by the supposed identification that he made later in the day after the defendant was arrested without proper cause and the fact that the defendant was not properly warned of his rights. BY THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. DAVIS: To which ruling we resepectively reserve a bill of exception. BY MR. LAIRD: Q. Would you now answer the question sir? A. He's right over there. Q. Where sir? A. Sitting right next to the lawyer that was just speaking. BY MR. LAIRD: Let the record reflect that the witness is pointing to the defendant, Joseph Richey. If it please the court, the State has no further questions of Mr. Reiszner at this time. We do want to have the option to recall him at a later time when appropriate foundation has been laid for more further testimony. BY THE COURT: All right sir. Because of the issues presented by defense counsel in these bills, we quote the joint bill, in part: In support of the defense objection, counsel argued that defendant was taken into custody in Cheneyville, Louisiana by two deputies and taken to Reiszner's Store where he was allegedly identified by Herbert R. Reiszner, Jr. in the illumination of a flashlight and that all of this was done without any prior warning being given to the defendant or any explanation of his rights being given to him, including the right to have counsel present and including the right to be identified only in a line up with counsel being present. Counsel for defendant stated that his objection to Herbert R. Reiszner, Jr. being permitted to identify the defendant in court was based on two grounds, namely (1) lack of proper foundation to ask the next logical question, that is, to request the witness to point out in court or identify the person who robbed him, and (2) any identification made now in court was tainted with the alleged identification, was illegal for the two reasons above having been made on the night of the arrest of the defendant and the District Attorney must show that the first identification and the court room identification were in fact separate. In this Court counsel for defendant argue: We respectfully submit that in this case the State of Louisiana has violated the rights of defendant, Joseph B. Richey, both under the Sixth Amendment and with reference to due process of law. In his per curiam to Bills 15 and 16, the trial judge notes that the defense injected into the case the prior identification and that the State confined itself to the identification made in Court. The answer to this, we submit, is the same answer given by the United States Supreme Court in the Wade case. The Court's words are quoted above. It held that the right to counsel would be an empty one if the rule was limited to exclusion of the out-of-court identification without regard to the admissibility of the courtroom identification. It noted that the out-of-court prior identification is most often used to crystallize the witness' identification for future reference. The Court also noted counsel's predicament in court of having to bring out himself the out-of-court identification as the only means of attack on an unequivocable courtroom identification. The relief granted in Wade and Gilbert was remanded for a determination of whether the in-court identification had independent source. We anticipate that the State will contend that it did this through the form of question put to Reiszner. We refer to the injunction contained in the question enjoining him to base his answer as to whether or not he could identify the robber in court `solely on your recollection of the robber as you remember him during the robbery.' We respectfully submit that framing the question thusly and receiving an affirmative answer does not constitute the kind of foundation required as indicated in the Wade and Gilbert cases. In any event, we submit that the due process test was not met. No lineup at all was arranged for the identification made at Reiszner's place on the night following the robbery. The accused, a negro, was presented by two white deputies to Reiszner. If the deputies did not suggest to Reiszner that the accused was the robber, as Deputy Wilmore's testimony indicates they did, Reiszner surely was influenced by the incriminatory and inculpatory statement and action of the accused. While we submit there was no probable cause for the accused's arrest, it can well be supposed that Reiszner would assume that the deputies had tangible reasons for believing the accused was the robber and had probable cause. Under all the circumstances, we respectfully submit that the in-court identification of the accused by Herbert Reiszner, following and depending upon the prior unfair identification process conducted out of court, should be invalidated by this Supreme Court and his conviction should be reversed. These bills require a determination of the legality of an in-field identification and an in-court identification. It is to be noted that defendant's confrontation with Mr. Reiszner occurred approximately eighteen hours after the robbery; but, the fact must be stressed that when defendant was apprehended and placed under arrest, he was immediately taken to Mr. Reiszner's store for the victim's viewing and observation. There was neither delay nor hesitation in Mr. Reiszner's identification. [5] We do not find that the case of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, is apposite to the instant prosecution. The question presented in Wade was whether court-room identifications of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for identification purposes without notice to and in the absence of the accused's appointed counsel. The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to it with directions to enter a new judgment vacating Wade's conviction and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. Likewise, we do not find that the case of Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, contains a guideline for decision herein. Gilbert involved a pretrial lineup conducted in the absence of counsel and incourt identifications. The matter was remanded for the purpose of affording the State of California an opportunity to establish that the in-court identifications had an independent source, or that their introduction in evidence was in any event harmless error. The Wade and Gilbert decisions were handed down by the United States Supreme Court on June 12, 1967. Commonwealth v. Bumpus, 354 Mass. 494, 238 N.E.2d 343 (1968), a breaking and entering prosecution, involved facts somewhat similar to those herein presented. On appeal from his conviction, Bumpus contended that the trial judge erred (a) in admitting evidence concerning Greenberg's and Fallon's observation (Greenberg was a student who identified Bumpus as an intruder, and Fallon was an officer) of Bumpus immediately after his arrest; and (b) in admitting Greenberg's in-court identification of Bumpus without a voir dire to establish that the identification had a source independent of the prior confrontation (Officer Fallon brought Bumpus to Greenberg for confrontation almost immediately after the commission of the offense). In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stated, 238 N.E.2d, at 347: Reasonable confrontations of this type, in the course of (or immediately following) a criminal episode, seem to us to be wholly different from post-indictment confrontations (such as those in the Wade and Gilbert cases) in serious crimes after a significant interval of time, and in the absence of already appointed counsel. The Supreme Court of the United States has not applied the principle of the Wade and Gilbert cases in such circumstances. Until we have more guidance than at present about the scope of necessary application of these cases, we shall regard them as not intended to apply to facts like those in the case at bar. This is an area where proper police protection of the public may be greatly embarrassed by rigid rules restricting intelligent, fair police action. Such action must be appraised with commonsense appreciation of the problems which confront policemen patrolling a residential area.    The facts of Russell v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 408 F.2d 1280 (1969) certiorari denied May 26, 1969, 395 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 1786, 23 L.Ed.2d 245, are similar to those herein presented. The identification by McCann, however, occurred almost immediately after the commission of the offense charged. In affirming defendant's conviction for housebreaking and petit larceny, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, said, 408 F.2d at 1284: Balancing all the doubts left by the mysteries of human perception and recognition, it appears that prompt confrontations in circumstances like those of this case will `if anything promote fairness, by assuring realiability   .' This probability, together with the desirability of expeditious release of innocent suspects, presents `substantial countervailing policy considerations' which we are reluctant to assume the Supreme Court would reject. We therefore conclude, with some hesitation, that Wade does not require exclusion of McCann's identification. This conclusion does not rest on a determination that McCann's identification was in fact especially reliable. It rests instead on a general rule that it is not improper for the police immediately to return a freshly apprehended suspect to the scene of the crime for identification by one who has seen the culprit minutes before. See, note, 22 L.Ed.2d p. 924. The case of Bates v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104 (1968), United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, involved facts similar to those herein presented. Therein, Circuit Judge Burger, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated, 405 F.2d at 1106: There is no prohibition against a viewing of a suspect alone in what is called a `one-man showup' when this occurs near the time of the alleged criminal act; such a course does not tend to bring about misidentification but rather tends under some circumstances to insure accuracy. The rationale underlying this is in some respects not unlike that which the law relies on to make an exception to the hearsay rule, allowing spontaneous utterances a standing which they would not be given if uttered at a later point in time. An early identification is not error. Of course, proof of infirmities and subjective factors, such as hysteria of a witness, can be explored on cross-examination and in argument. Prudent police work would confine these on-the-spot identifications to situations in which possible doubts as to identification needed to be resolved promptly; absence such need the conventional line-up viewing is the appropriate procedure. See, Harris v. Dees, 5 Cir., 421 F.2d 1079. Cf. United States v. Ballard, 5 Cir., 423 F.2d 127; United States v. Canty, 4 Cir., 430 F.2d 1332. Also see, State v. Lewis, 255 La. 134, 229 So.2d 726. Under the above jurisprudence, we conclude that the in-field identification which took place herein after the robbery was legal. As stated supra, defendant was brought to Mr. Reiszner's store by the arresting officers at the earliest possible moment. We do not find that the period of time which elapsed between the robbery and the confrontation was excessively long; we do not find that confrontation was precluded by a period of some eighteen hours. Under the facts and circumstances at the time of defendant's confrontation with Mr. Reiszner, defendant suffered no violation of his constitutional rights. Despite our finding with respect to the legality of the in-field identification, we find that Mr. Reiszner's in-court identification of the defendant was independent of and not tainted with his in-field identification. His testimony affirms the fact that the in-court identification was based solely on his recollection of the man who robbed him. The facts stated supra reflect that Mr. Reiszner gave a description of the robber to many persons before defendant's apprehension and arrest. The testimony discloses his acute mental picture of the robber. The facts, supra, disclose that Mr. Reiszner's view of the robber at the time of the robbery was not momentary; the observation took place both outside and inside of the store. We conclude that the in-court identification was proper and legal. See, State v. Allen, 251 La. 237, 203 So.2d 705; State v. Singleton, 253 La. 18, 215 So.2d 838; State v. Alexander, 255 La. 941, 233 So.2d 891; State v. Pratt, 255 La. 919, 233 So.2d 883; State v. Henderson, 253 La. 981, 221 So.2d 480. Cf. State v. Junius, 257 La. 331, 242 So.2d 533. Bills of Exceptions Nos. 15 and 16 are without merit.