Opinion ID: 1415896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: photographic lineup procedure

Text: A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 540 S.E.2d 445 (2000). An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Id. The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). First, a court must ascertain whether the identification process was unduly suggestive. The court must next decide whether the out-of-court identification was nevertheless so reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification existed. Moore, 343 S.C. at 288, 540 S.E.2d at 448. The central question is whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive. State v. Stewart, 275 S.C. 447, 450, 272 S.E.2d 628, 629 (1980). We find the line-up procedure utilized in this case was patently suggestive. To bring three victims into the same room, within several feet of one another, is blatantly unacceptable. There is simply no need for such a procedure, and we strongly admonish the state against utilization of simultaneous viewings in the future. However, notwithstanding the suggestiveness of the line-up in this case, we simply cannot conclude it gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Even assuming an identification procedure is suggestive, it need not be excluded so long as, under all the circumstances, the identification was reliable notwithstanding the suggestiveness. The inquiry must focus upon whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Moore, 343 S.C. at 287, 540 S.E.2d at 447-48, citing Jefferson v. State, 206 Ga.App. 544, 425 S.E.2d 915, 918 (1992). The following factors should be considered in evaluating the totality of the circumstances to determine the likelihood of a misidentification: (1) the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime, (2) the witness's degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the perpetrator, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 541, 552 S.E.2d 300, 308 (2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 933, 122 S.Ct. 1310, 152 L.Ed.2d 219 (2002). As noted previously, Robbins testified the victims were seated several feet apart from one another, and she individually handed them sets of 4-5 photos, which each would look at and hand back to her. There was no conversation between them while they were observing the photos, and they did not turn the photos over and look at the names on the back. Further, each of the victims testified as to the procedure utilized. Marcos testified that he did not notice any writing on the front of the photos, [10] and that he did not say anything to Alfredo or Javier as to what he saw in the photos. Alfredo testified that in looking at the photos in Robbins' office, Marcos looked at them first, then he did, then Javier did; he did not know who Marcos had picked out of the pictures when he looked at the photos. Alfredo picked out the photos of Traylor, Hayes, and one of the other black males. Javier testified he did not know, when he received the photos, whose pictures Marcos and Alfredo had picked out. Javier also identified the photo of Traylor as the white male assailant, as well as a photo of Hayes as the assailant who had cut Marcus. Javier did not notice any writing on the bottom of the photos. The victims testified they were able to view the white male assailant anywhere from one minute (Alfredo), five minutes (Javier), and ten minutes (Marcos), with the lights on. Although they did not give a hair or eye color (the assailant had a cap on), they told Robbins he was tall, slim, and young. Further, although they did not specifically describe his clothing (other than the cap), they testified before the jury that they had all seen his face. Clearly, this testimony demonstrates their attention was focused on his face. The next factor is the accuracy of their description. The victims all described the white male as being tall and slim, which is an accurate description of Traylor. Further, although Traylor has a fairly distinctive looking face due to the fact that it is quite long and slim, there is no specific distinguishing feature such as moles, mustache, bushy brows, deep-set eyes, or the like. The fourth factor is the witnesses' level of certainty; all three victims were quite certain of their identification in this case. And, finally, the identification of Traylor was made two days after the incident, clearly weighing in favor of its reliability. In sum, although we cannot condone the manner in which the photographic line-up in this case was performed, there is simply not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, such that the trial court properly allowed the identification. [11] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' holding on this issue is reversed.