Opinion ID: 2982026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Out-of-Court Identification

Text: Perales next challenges the district court’s decision to admit FBI Agent Kocher’s testimony regarding Crown Inn Motel employee Brian Osbourne’s out-of-court identification of Perales as the person staying at the motel with Beasley between robberies. When shown a photograph of Perales the week before trial, Osbourne identified him as the man staying at the Crown Inn. At trial, Osbourne testified that he saw a male at the Crown Inn matching Perales’s description. However, Osbourne also testified that the man he saw at the motel was not in the courtroom. Osbourne confirmed, however, that when he previously was shown a photograph, he had identified that person as the man who had been staying at the motel. Later in the trial, the court permitted Agent Kocher to testify that he had shown Osbourne a photograph of Perales a week prior to trial. This court reviews a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 398 (6th Cir. 2007). Perales argues that “Agent Kocher provided testimony that Mr. Osbourne previously identified Mr. Perales in a photo array. This is classic hearsay as the government offered the out-ofcourt statement of Mr. Osbourne for the truth of the matter asserted.” Appellant’s Br. at 38 (citing -7- No. 12-3982 United States v. Perales Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)). A statement is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C), however, if the declarant “testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement . . . identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.” These statements of prior identifications are permitted as substantive evidence because of “the generally unsatisfactory and inconclusive nature of courtroom identifications as compared with those made at an earlier time under less suggestive conditions.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C), advisory committee’s note (1972). Under Rule 801(d)(1)(C), Agent Kocher’s testimony regarding Osbourne’s out-of-court identification of Perales was admissible non-hearsay because Osbourne testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination concerning his prior identification. The Seventh Circuit has explained: So long as the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(C) are met, government agents may testify about a prior statement of identification made by a witness who identified the defendant in a lineup or photospread, but forgets, or changes, his testimony at trial. The better course, obviously, is to provide the photo array or other evidence of the prior identification immediately, while the declarant is still on the witness stand. But events at trial sometimes make the better course impractical. In such circumstances, a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine a declarant regarding his prior identification is enough to satisfy the requirements of Rule 801, even if the defendant chooses not to use the opportunity. United States v. Foster, 652 F.3d 776, 788 89 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Brink, 39 F.3d 419, 426 (3d Cir. 1994) (finding congressional debate over Rule 801 suggests that “Congress was aware that third parties would testify to the witness’s prior statements”). Osbourne testified at Perales’s trial and defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine him. There is no indication in the record that he was unavailable for reexamination after Agent Kocher testified. See United States v. Elemy, 656 F.2d 507, 508 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that FBI agent’s testimony regarding witness’s prior identification was admissible where nothing in -8- No. 12-3982 United States v. Perales the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agent’s testimony); Foster, 652 F.3d at 789. Accordingly, Agent Kocher’s testimony regarding Osbourne’s identification was not hearsay, and the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.