Opinion ID: 1640733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether rice's identification of howell was reliable.

Text: ¶ 21. Howell alleges that Rice's identification of him was flawed because the lighting at the scene was poor. Howell also claims that the State misrepresented the conditions at the time of the shooting as to the distance from Rice's window to Pernell's car. Howell further alleges that Petitioner has now discovered evidence that the State's star witness who stated in his trial testimony that he was in the process of smoking a cigarette when he supposedly witnessed the shooting was smoking marijuana and may have been under the influence of a controlled substance at the time he observed the shooting of Mr. Pernell. ¶ 22. As discussed supra, issues related to Rice's identification of the shooter are res judicata and are procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (Rev. 2007). Visibility issues and Rice's opportunity to view the shooting were explored at length at trial. Evidence was presented that the shooting took place approximately seventy-one feet from Rice and that Rice's view of the crime was unobstructed. The State showed that, although at the time of the shooting, conditions were predawn, there was considerable light from several sources, including streetlights, porch lights, and perhaps most importantly, the headlights of the vehicle driven by Howell's cohort. In Howell's direct appeal, this Court found that [u]nder the totality of the circumstances, there is no likelihood whatsoever that Rice's identification was not reliable. Howell, 860 So.2d at 731. As to the assertion of Howell's counsel that Rice was smoking marijuana on the morning of the shooting, the only statement supporting that claim is the unsworn, handwritten statement of a New Albany resident who claims to know Rice, and we give that claim via an unsworn statement little weight. ¶ 23. Howell presents an affidavit from a professor of psychology who opines that conditions for a positive identification of the shooter were highly unfavorable based on the lighting, the distance to the shooting, and the fact that Rice is white and Howell is African-American. We note several flaws in the professor's analysis. First, the professor claims that the shooting happened forty-five minutes before dawn. Actually, the shooting happened approximately forty-two minutes before actual sunrise but as was discussed at trial, twilight begins much earlier. The professor claims that the shooter mostly had his back to Mr. Rice as he was walking from this car to where the shooting took place. Even if this statement is true, the professor ignores the fact that the shooter was facing Rice at the time of the actual shooting. ¶ 24. The professor also claims that the lineup was biased. The professor incorrectly states that the lineup was a five-person lineup, whereas the record reveals that there were in fact six subjects in the lineup. This issue was addressed at trial and on direct appeal and is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (Rev.2007). In the direct appeal, this Court reviewed the five factors for determining whether a lineup is impermissibly suggestive as set out in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). We found that the line-up was not unduly suggestive and that evidence from the lineup was properly admitted. Howell, 860 So.2d at 730-31. Therefore, we decline to again consider this issue via these post-conviction relief proceedings.