Opinion ID: 2058264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Photographic Array

Text: Before trial, Lee moved to suppress the witnesses' identification, arguing that it was based on an unduly suggestive array of photographs. The trial court denied the motion. Both witnesses identified Lee in court and testified about their earlier identification of his photograph without objection. When the State offered the array of photographs, Lee objected based on his earlier motion to suppress. The objection was overruled and the photographs were admitted. The State correctly argues that Lee has waived any error in his identification. Two witnesses identified Lee as the perpetrator without objection. By failing to object to that in-court identification and the testimony about the photographic line-up, Lee afforded the trial judge no opportunity to reconsider his ruling on the motion to suppress. The later admission of the photographic array was merely cumulative. In any event, an objection would have been unavailing. A photographic array is impermissibly suggestive when it raises a substantial likelihood of misidentification given the totality of the circumstances. Dumbsky v. State (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 1274, 1277. This line-up consists of photographs of seven black males, all of similar age and general appearance. Lee points to the fact that the subjects of the other photographs are more slightly built than he. Given that Lee stands six feet three inches and weighs 272 pounds, the Evansville Police Department would find it a difficult task to assemble subjects any more similar in appearance than the ones contained in this array. Additionally, the photographs depict only the head and shoulders of the subjects. From this view, the differences in height and weight are not obvious. Lee also argues that the contrast in tone makes his picture appear darker than the others, rendering the array impermissibly suggestive. Each photograph in the array varies slightly in tone from the others; we cannot say that this variance was conducive to a misidentification. Finally, Lee contends that his darker complexion draws undue attention to his picture. It is true that some of the photographs depict individuals with lighter complexions. As a practical matter, a photographic array cannot contain photographs of individuals identical in appearance. This line-up contains photographs of individuals meeting the same general description. It is not impermissibly suggestive and conducive to a mistaken identification. For the first time, appellant argues in his brief that the trial court improperly admitted the array because the photographs were obviously mug shots and the jury could infer from them his prior criminal history. While this allegation is also waived because Lee did not object at trial on this basis, such an objection would have been unsuccessful. Though the pictures do depict the traditional frontal and profile views common to mug shots, the State sought to minimize this effect. The identification information was covered with tape and the background of the photographs does not indicate that the individuals were incarcerated. See Ashley v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 768. The court properly admitted the photographs.