Opinion ID: 2498965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: This court addressed a similar challenge to PIK Crim.3d 52.20 in State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. ___, 275 P.3d 905 (2012) (this day decided). In Mitchell, we summarized our prior caselaw treating eyewitness identifications with care and adopting the cautionary eyewitness identification instruction as a procedural safeguard. We reaffirmed in Mitchell that district courts are required to issue a cautionary instruction whenever an eyewitness identification is a critical aspect of the prosecution's case and there are serious questions about the identification's reliability. 294 Kan. at ___, 275 P.3d 905 (citing State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 391, 635 P.2d 1236 [1981]). Also in Mitchell, this court noted that the scientific literature on eyewitness certainty remained inconclusive. We held the degree of certainty factor, as worded in PIK Crim.3d 52.20, should not be included in jury instructions because it prompts the jury to conclude that eyewitness identification is more reliable when the witness expresses greater certainty. 294 Kan. ___, Syl. ¶ 4, 275 P.3d 905. Applying Mitchell, we hold that the trial court erred by issuing PIK Crim.3d 52.20 without omitting the degree of certainty factor at Anderson's trial. Therefore, we move to the next step in the analysis to determine whether this error could reasonably have misled the jury. We must review the record to see whether an expression of certainty by the eyewitness was communicated to the jury, and, if so, the nature and extent of the certainty expressed. If the court determines there was no degree of certainty conveyed by the witness when making the identification, the jury could not have been misled by including this factor in the instruction. Mitchell, 294 Kan. ___, Syl. ¶ 5, 275 P.3d 905. In his testimony, Jones said he watched the promoter's video during the police investigation and was asked to identify anyone he recognized. Jones acknowledged that he could identify the shooter in the video because of the Carhartt jacket. The State then played the video for the jury while Jones was on the witness stand and asked him to point out on the video the individual in the Carhartt jacket, which he did. This allowed the jury to compare the image Jones pointed out on the video with Anderson, who was sitting in the courtroom. But from the appellate record we are unable to evaluate whether Jones actually identified Anderson's likeness because the video is not included in the appellate record. What is more, Jones did not make any direct in-court identification, so the only evidence Jones gave was pointing out an image on the video. The record does not tell us which image Jones pointed to, the video's quality, or whether the jury could discern any distinguishing features from which to make its own comparison with the defendant. With these limitations, we cannot conclude the eyewitness identification instruction was misleading as to Jones' testimony. As to the other eyewitness Anderson targets, Bryce Johnson identified Anderson as the shooter on two occasions. First, Johnson identified the defendant in court by describing Anderson's clothing after the State asked whether he saw the shooter in the courtroom. Second, Johnson testified that he pointed out the shooter from the video during the police investigation by stating something like that's the MF that did it right there. But Johnson did not express any degree of certainty in either identification beyond the emphasis of the expletive when referring to the video image. And this is not the type of evidence generally associated with the certainty factor contained in jury instructions. See Mitchell, 294 Kan. at ___, 275 P.3d 905 (witness indicating he was 100 % certain in his identification). No argument is made or record provided that articulates any body language or demeanor by Johnson that may have conveyed to the jury a level of certainty or confidence in his identification of Anderson. We cannot conclude from this record that the eyewitness identification instruction was misleading as to Johnson's testimony. But even if we accept the expletive as a form of certainty evidence that the jury may have considered, we still cannot hold that Johnson's in-court identification of Anderson as the shooter was critical to the prosecution's case because there was substantial additional evidence implicating Anderson as the shooter. The strongest of this evidence was Anderson's DNA found on the murder weapon, and Anderson's ex-girlfriend's testimony that Anderson told her he didn't know [he] shot two people and that he killed Williams because Williams stepped to his boy and if that was me that he would do the same thing. In addition, the State admitted a significant amount of circumstantial evidence and had witnesses who testified that the shooter was wearing a tan or brown waist-length jacket, which Anderson's ex-girlfriend linked to the style of jacket worn by Anderson. Moreover, the video was played for the jury, and the jurors could determine for themselves whether Anderson was the person wearing the jacket that night. Witnesses also testified they saw the shooter get into the car they believed was the get-away vehicle, and Anderson was the only occupant that was not in the car at the time of the shooting. There are also circumstances that lend reliability to Johnson's identification because it was based on video footage from the night of the shooting and Johnson was able to view the people on the scene, including Anderson, in the clothing worn at the time of the shooting. Johnson also testified on cross-examination that he did not know the shooter's name but was familiar with him because he had seen Anderson before, stating: I've seen him but I can't say this is his name, this is who he is because like I was telling [the officer], I don't know if he's either from Topeka or Denver. I said he's either from Topeka or Denver because he's associated with, you know, my boy Doe and people like that. I've seen him around people like that. In Mitchell, the eyewitness testified he knew his attacker, even though he did not know his name, because the attacker previously had stayed in his apartment and the two had interacted on a few other occasions. There was no evidence disputing that claim, although the defendant argued the victim did not know the defendant as well as he claimed. This court held reversal was not required because the identification was sufficiently reliable given the witness' familiarity with the defendant. 294 Kan. at ___-___, 275 P.3d 905. And although the extent that a witness is familiar with a defendant will vary in each case, Johnson's claim that he was familiar with Anderson was sufficiently reliable in light of all the evidence. Therefore, we hold that the certainty factor listed in the eyewitness identification instruction could not have reasonably misled the jury.