Opinion ID: 1801680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: In-court Display of Defendant's Tattoos

Text: Defendant claims the trial court erred when it allowed eyewitness Daryl Stone to identify defendant based on his observation of defendant's tattooed arms, which the trial court directed defendant to display in open court by rolling up his sleeves. Before trial, the prosecution and the defense had agreed to use an identification procedure where the prosecutor would show Stone a photographic lineup of various tattooed arms, without displaying anyone's faces; but when the state called Stone as a witness during the trial, the prosecutor presented no photographic lineup and decided to rely upon an in-court display instead. The trial court overruled defendant's objection to this new identification procedure. Defendant claims the in-court display was unduly suggestive and violated several of his federal and state constitutional rights, including his right to due process. (37) There was no error. For purposes of an in-court identification, [f]orced exhibition of `real or physical' evidence, such as of a physical characteristic, does not constitute a fundamental unfairness which is a violation of due process .... ( People v. Sims (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 544, 552 [134 Cal.Rptr. 566] [an in-court identification procedure, by which defendant was compelled to read seven statements made by the assailant, was not `impermissibly suggestive']; see also People v. Holt (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 343, 350-352 [104 Cal.Rptr. 572].) Defendant here suggests no reason why a different standard should apply to the identification of a tattoo than to other physical characteristics that a witness may rely on to make an in-court identification.