Opinion ID: 2510413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to give an instruction regarding eyewitness identifications

Text: Trotter claims that the trial court should have given the jury the following eyewitness identification instruction: The law places the burden upon the State to identify the defendant. The law does not require the defendant to prove (he)(she) has been wrongly identified. In weighing the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony, you first should determine whether any of the following factors existed and, if so, the extent to which they would affect the accuracy of identification by an eyewitness. Factors you may consider are: 1. The opportunity the witness had to observe. This includes any physical condition which could affect the ability of the witness to observe, the length of the time of observation, and any limitations on observation like an obstruction or poor lighting; 2. The emotional state of the witness at the time, including that which might be caused by the use of a weapon or a threat of violence; 3. Whether the witness had observed the defendant(s) on earlier occasions; 4. Whether a significant amount of time elapsed between the crime charged and any later identification; 5. Whether the witness ever failed to identify the defendant(s) or made any inconsistent identification; 6. The degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused; and 7. Whether there are any other circumstances that may have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. PIK Crim. 3d 52.20. Trotter claims that he requested an eyewitness identification instruction, and therefore this court is required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to him. See State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356, 85 P.3d 697 (2004) (requiring the court to evaluate a requested instruction in a light most favorable to the defendant). First, we note that Trotter did not request the PIK instruction he now claims was necessary. Rather, Trotter requested the following instruction: Credibility of Witnesses In deciding the facts of this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: 1. the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; 2. the witness' memory; 3 the witness' manner while testifying; 4. the witness' interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice; 5. whether other evidence contradicted the witness' testimony; 6. the reasonableness of the witness' testimony in light of all evidence; and 7. any other factors that bear on believability. The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify. We have previously noted that the reliability of an eyewitness identification is not the same as the credibility of a witness. State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. 193, 206, 105 P.3d 710 (2005); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. 670, 678-79, 56 P.3d 212 (2002). Trotter's requested instruction addresses witness credibility rather than eyewitness reliability. Thus, the instruction Trotter requested is not equivalent to the instruction he now claims as error on appeal. No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he or she objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he or she objects and the grounds of his or her objection, unless the instruction or the failure to give the instruction is clearly erroneous. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-3414(3). Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced that there is a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the trial error had not occurred. [Citation omitted.] State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 346, 22 P.3d 151 (2001). The instruction Trotter requested applies to witness credibility in general and does not contain the factors for considering the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Thus, the instruction Trotter requested is not an eyewitness identification instruction and the proper standard of review is clearly erroneous. Trotter now relies on State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 69 P.3d 571 (2003), for the proposition that the court must give an eyewitness identification instruction if identification is a central issue in the case. In Hunt, the court considered the propriety of a one-person show-up eyewitness identification procedure. The Hunt court refined the process for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness identifications, stating that where such identification is a central issue in a case, a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification should be given. (Emphasis added.) 275 Kan. at 818. However, the Hunt court did not consider when the failure to give such an eyewitness instruction constituted reversible error. Therefore, Hunt does not stand for the proposition that a court must give an eyewitness identification instruction any time a witness makes an in-court identification, regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction or not. Trotter's reliance on Hunt to circumvent the clearly erroneous standard of review is misplaced. Trotter also relies on State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 635 P.2d 1236 (1981), to support his assertion that an eyewitness identification instruction must be given whether the defendant requests one or not. In Warren, the defendant was charged with attempted aggravated robbery. An alleged accomplice testified against Warren, and one of the victims identified Warren at trial. Warren then attempted to admit expert testimony regarding the lack of reliability for eyewitness identifications, and his request for an eyewitness identification instruction was denied by the trial judge. The Warren court reversed the defendant's conviction based on other grounds unrelated to the victim's in-court identification. 230 Kan. at 389. Nevertheless, the Warren court addressed the admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identifications and the defendant's request for an eyewitness identification instruction. The Warren court concluded that an eyewitness identification instruction should be given in any appropriate case. (Emphasis added.) 230 Kan. at 400. However, we note that Warren does not require the trial court to give an eyewitness identification instruction if the defendant has not requested that instruction. The defendant in Warren had specifically requested the instruction. Trotter did not request an instruction on eyewitness reliability. Under these circumstances, Trotter's reliance on Warren to circumvent the clearly erroneous standard of review is without merit. To further support his argument, Trotter then analogizes the facts in Warren to the facts in his case. In Warren, the eyewitness' initial description did not completely match the defendant's characteristics, and the description was not consistent from hearing to hearing. In addition, the eyewitness did not identify the defendant until 4½ months after the robbery when he was told that the police had arrested the man that robbed him and that the man was in the courtroom. The only man in the courtroom was the defendant. True to Trotter's analogy, the facts in this case are similar to those in Warren. In this case, the day after his parents were murdered, Damante could not identify a picture of Trotter as the man who pushed him or killed his parents. Rather, Damante misidentified the picture of Trotter as his father's friend Rock, who was married to Trotter's sister, Lajoh. Damante identified Trotter's picture 3 months later when police showed him pictures of all five of the codefendants. Trotter asserts that, at that point, it was possible that Damante had observed Trotter's picture on television as the suspect in the case. Although Trotter's argument focuses on the factual similarities between this case and Warren, comparing the delay in making the identifications and the inconsistency of the identifications, Trotter's argument overlooks a key difference between this case and Warren. In Warren, the eyewitness was identifying a complete stranger. Here, Damante knew Trotter, because Trotter was a friend of Wallace's. Trotter had been to Damante's house previously to visit Wallace. Damante also knew that Trotter sometimes visited with Trotter's sister Lajoh and her husband Rock. Thus, Trotter was not a stranger to Damante. We have previously held that an eyewitness identification instruction is not necessary when the witness is familiar with the person being identified. See, e.g., State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. at 206-07 (concluding that the witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant who had been to the witness' house on at least 20 occasions to purchase drugs from the witness' brother); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. at 678-79 (concluding the trial court's failure to give the instruction was not clearly erroneous because the witness knew the defendant); State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. at 353-54 (finding no error in failing to give the instruction because the witness knew the defendant). `Where the witness personally knows the individual being identified, the cautionary eyewitness identification instruction is not necessary and the accuracy of the identification can be sufficiently challenged through cross-examination.' 279 Kan. at 206 (quoting Mann, 274 Kan. 670 Syl. ¶ 2). Trotter's defense counsel thoroughly challenged Damante's identification at trial. In fact, the State did not request Damante to identify Trotter during its direct examination. Rather, on direct examination, Damante testified that he heard his father say, Chris. On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited the testimony identifying the person Damante knew as Chris to be the person who pushed Damante back into his room. Then on redirect, when the State asked Damante whether he saw the person he knew as Chris in the courtroom, Damante identified Trotter. Damante testified that Trotter was at his house the night his mom and dad were killed. On re-cross, defense counsel questioned Damante again about whether Trotter was the man who pushed him back into his room. Trotter's counsel then attempted to distinguish the man who pushed Damante from the man who struggled with Wallace on the stairs, asking: [Defense Counsel:] Q. Just so we're clear, you're tellingin response to the prosecution's questions, you're telling the jurors that the person you saw push you back in the room, that's the Chris you're identifying? [Damante:] A. Yes. Damante's identification of Trotter as the man who pushed him back into his room directly contradicts Eddington's testimony that Eddington was the man who pushed Damante back into his room. During closing argument, Trotter's counsel highlighted this contradiction, noting, Both of these identifications cannot be correct. Those two witnesses directly contradict each other. . . . It's very clear he's not talking about Chris Trotter. He's talking about Kevin Eddington. To establish reversible error, Trotter must demonstrate that there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the trial court had given the eyewitness identification instruction from PIK Crim. 3d 52.20. See Mann, 274 Kan. at 677. Trotter has failed to make that showing. His trial counsel actively pursued Damante's in-court identification, knowing that it would be contradicted by Eddington's testimony. Trotter's counsel also thoroughly attacked Damante's identification, highlighting Damante's inability to identify Trotter the day after his parents were murdered. Here Damante was familiar with Trotter, and his identification was thoroughly challenged during the trial; there is no possibility that the jury would have returned a different verdict if the eyewitness identification instruction had been given. Therefore, the trial court did not err by not giving the unrequested eyewitness instruction.