Opinion ID: 2543459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adequacy of trial court findings

Text: While it might be possible in some cases to determine from the lack of suggestiveness in the challenged identification procedure alone that suggestiveness could not have created a substantial likelihood of misidentification, see, e.g., People v. Webster, 987 P.2d 836 (Colo. App.1998), that is not what happened in this case. Here, the trial court not only observed the photo array and heard unchallenged testimony about the neutral and formal manner in which the identification procedure was conducted; it also heard considerable testimony about the physical conditions and relevant circumstances surrounding the robbery and the witnesses' multiple opportunities and actual observations of the robbers. Although its ruling was cursory, in addition to assessing the composition of the array itself, the trial court expressly found that the lighting inside the bank was good and that the attention of the witnesses was focused on the defendant during his repeated assaults to make them stop looking at him. The court's finding that the out-of-court identification was not impermissibly suggestive was therefore the product of a balancing of elements from both sides of the scale. In addition to the trial court's specific findings of fact, the record of both the motions hearing and the trial contained uncontradicted testimony about the robbery that was supportive of the witnesses' independent ability to identify the defendant. The co-op was in a small trailer with abundant natural light and with multiple fluorescent lights, and the robbers were visible at least from the moment they noisily entered the front door, attempting to obscure their appearances only with baseball caps and sunglasses. The two women who identified the defendant observed him for several minutes, rather than merely in passing, and were actually close enough to be struck in the face and head by him several times, have clumps of hair pulled out, and smell alcohol on his breath. Each testified about her attentiveness and training to concentrate on particular facial features, see Manson, 432 U.S. at 115, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (witness's status as trained police officer is a factor in determining degree of attention), one testifying that she focused on the perpetrator's hair, skin, lips and jaw line, and the other noticing particularly his jaw and puffy cheeks. One described the six-foot, 155 pound defendant as tall with a medium build, black hair, and medium colored rather than dark skinned; while the other described him as taller than she perhaps five feet, eight inches tallwith a medium build, black hair, and skin that was not white but not dark. [4] Each indicated that she was positive of the photo identification, and neither expressed any equivocation in identifying the defendant in court or during cross-examination. Even the delay of six weeks between the robbery and the out-of-court identification procedure did not significantly weigh against the witnesses' ability to independently identify the defendant. To the contrary, in light of the traumatic nature of the encounter, its duration in time, the witnesses' numerous opportunities to view the defendant up close, their level of confidence, and the absence of any wrong choices or failures by the witnesses during the intervening six weeks to identify the defendant, a delay of six weeks is not one necessarily causing adult memories to fade. See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 203, 93 S.Ct. 375 (despite seven-month gap, identification upheld because of other strong indicia of reliability); United States ex rel. Kosik v. Napoli, 814 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir.1987)(two month gap does not by itself raise serious question about reliability); State v. Stewart, 389 So.2d 1321, 1324 (La.1980)(lapse of thirteen months found to be a long time to remember a face, but was not per se unreliable); State v. Story, 646 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Mo.1983)(seventeen month interval between illegal drug transaction and time undercover agent identified defendant's photo held not unreliable in itself). Rather than a corporeal or photo showup of the defendant by himself, e.g., Manson, 432 U.S. at 101, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (single photo showup); Biggers, 409 U.S. at 195, 93 S.Ct. 375 (police station showup), or any situation pressuring the witness to make an identification, see Manson, 432 U.S. at 116, 97 S.Ct. 2243, an array of six photos, including the defendant, was shown to each of the three women. The witnesses were separated in different rooms of the co-op before being shown the array and read a standard set of instructions by the administering detective. Each was specifically told that the array might or might not contain a suspect and that her choice, if she made one, could not be confirmed. Each was asked not to discuss the array or her choice with anyone. Manager Wagner picked the defendant's photo after studying the pictures for about two minutes, indicating that she was positive of her identification. Assistant manager McBride picked the defendant's photo after about one minute, indicating that she was positive of her identification. The array itself contained photos of six men with approximately the same youthful appearance, medium complexions, dark hair, and generally similar facial characteristics, arranged in two rows of three photos each, with the defendant appearing in the middle of the top row. By far, the most prominent feature of each individual, and the feature that Detective Grose clearly sought to match in every photo, was the unusual hairstyle (described by the trial court as done the same goofy-looking way), which appeared as a tuft of hair rising from the top of the head with little or no hair on the sides. [5] Two photos, including that of the defendant, had differently shaded backgrounds, [6] but none appeared to be a mug shot or more likely to be a photo of a police suspect. Although the two witnesses who ultimately identified the defendant indicated for various reasons and with varying degrees of confidence a belief that the robber was Hispanic, they did not describe him as having physical features that particularly appeared to be Hispanic. [7] Furthermore, the varying ethnicities of several of the men in the photos were not so pronounced as to make the defendant's photo stand out from the others as one the police intended the witness to choose. Cf. People v. Mahdi, 89 Ill.App.3d 947, 45 Ill.Dec. 318, 412 N.E.2d 669 (1980)(where murderer was described as Arab, photo array not suggestive despite defendant being only Arab in array consisting of others of Puerto Rican or Mexican descent resembling defendant). In any event, however, the array was apparently not so suggestive as to influence teller Simons, who was unable to identify anyone from it. See Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1211 n. 7 (10th Cir.1999) (failure of some witnesses to identify defendant considered indication that array was not too suggestive). Even the identifying witnesses studied the photos for some time rather than immediately leaping at the defendant's photo. As often noted in the past, police stations are not theatrical casting offices and cannot be required to provide exact replicas of the defendant for a lineup. See United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983); People v. Bolton, 859 P.2d 311, 319 (Colo. App.1993); People v. Borrego, 668 P.2d 21, 23 (Colo.App.1983). On the contrary, to the extent that the object of a photo lineup is to determine the identity of the perpetrator rather than to deceive the witness, exact replicas of the suspect would not even be desirable. If uniformity were too rigidly required in photographic lineups, they would become ineffective as an investigative tool. Moreover, to the extent that any suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure appears on the face of the array, it can be brought to the attention of the jury, whether or not counsel was present during the procedure, just as well as it can be brought to the attention of a reviewing court. As has been stated by both the Supreme Court and this court: We are content to rely on the good sense and judgment of American juries, for evidence with some element of untrustworthiness is customary grist for the jury mill. Juries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature. Manson, 432 U.S. at 116, 97 S.Ct. 2243; Monroe, 925 P.2d at 772. Not only do such concerns present less of a danger than suggestiveness that arises from the manner in which police present the array to a witness, which the jury cannot observe, but to the extent that the composition of an array presents a less difficult choice for the witness, it correspondingly loses probative force as a test or demonstration and detracts from the persuasiveness of a subsequent in-court identification. [8] Despite the care taken during the presentation of the photo array in this case, it must be considered suggestive to some degree for a number of reasons, not least because of the differently shaded background of the defendant's photo and the predisposition of the eyewitnesses to identify an individual they thought might be Hispanic. The constitutionally significant question, however, is whether that suggestiveness, considered with all other relevant circumstances, created a very substantial likelihood of misidentification at that time and later when the witnesses identified the defendant at trial. The factors, or questions of historical fact, from which this determination should be made and for which the trial court is primarily responsible, such as lighting, timing, positioning, the extent of the defendant's disguise, the number of times the witnesses looked at him, and the confidence expressed by the witnesses in their identifications, were not in dispute. The ultimate balance is a mixed question of fact and law for this court. Sumner, 455 U.S. at 597, 102 S.Ct. 1303. Even with regard to more subjective matters like the emotional state of the witnesses, their impressions, fears, memories, and degree of attention, the eyewitnesses were subject to examination and cross-examination at trial, without startling revelation. I see no need for a remand because I do not believe the ultimate constitutional determination in this case is dependent upon any as yet unresolved questions of historical fact. The majority's directions on remand suggest that it too is less concerned with findings that must be made by a trial court than with providing the defendant an additional opportunity to develop matters that he failed to pursue at trial. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that once a defendant demonstrates a degree of suggestiveness dubbed impermissible, he acquires the absolute right to, in effect, depose the victims outside the presence of the jury. The extent and nature of the evidence necessary to determine the likelihood of misidentification will vary with the circumstances of each case, and in my opinion should remain a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Should the record of both the hearing and trial be inadequate to resolve the question, however, I agree that remand for further findings is the appropriate remedy. The record here demonstrates an intense, traumatic, and physically painful confrontation between trained bank employees and the robber, for several minutes, at extremely close quarters, in good lighting, with only a minimal attempt at disguise. It also shows a professionally conducted photographic lineup, designed to minimize suggestiveness in its presentation, resulting in well-considered, positive identifications by two of the three witnesses to whom it was shown. In my opinion, it cannot fairly be said that any suggestiveness inherent in the choice of subjects or the photos themselves created a very substantial likelihood of misidentification without which there can be no violation of the defendant's right to due process of law. III. CONFRONTATION CLAUSE Following the photographic identifications, warrants were prepared and both the defendant and codefendant Rodarte were arrested. During custodial interrogation, Rodarte admitted that he and Tano Torres had used Torres' key to take Tucker's car the night before the robbery. [9] Rodarte specifically denied, however, that the defendant was involved in taking the car and denied that any of the three had anything to do with the subsequent robbery. Instead, he indicated that he had been solicited by four other Hispanic men to steal a car and that after he had done so, he sold the car to them. The People moved in limine for admission of Rodarte's out-of-court statement, expressly limited to that portion in which he implicated himself in the car theft. The offer was made for the limited purpose of demonstrating that Rodarte was personally involved in the robbery. [10] The trial court allowed the statement pursuant to the exception to the hearsay rule in CRE 804(b)(3) for statements against a declarant's penal interest and instructed the jury following opening statements, contemporaneously with admission, and again at the close of the evidence that the statement could be considered only for the purpose of establishing Rodarte's guilt. Like its federal counterpart, Rule 804(b)(3) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence allows an exception to the rule barring hearsay evidence for: A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability ... that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. [11] CRE 804(b)(3). There has been much discussion about the scope of a statement within the meaning of the rule, with the object of deciding whether that term connotes an extended declaration that is sufficiently inculpatory in the aggregate or merely those declarations or remarks within a confession that are individually self-inculpatory. See Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) (limiting the federal rule more along the lines of the latter); People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563 (1998) (construing Colorado's rule to be broader and to include collaterally neutral statements). Unlike statements shifting blame to someone else, with which those discussions were concerned, the statement admitted in this case was on its face an individually self-inculpatory admission. Although those portions of statements against penal interest implicating other people may carry separate guarantees of trustworthiness in individual cases, their reliability, if any, does not derive from the reasons envisioned by the rule for statements against the declarant's own penal interest. In fact, both this court and the Supreme Court have on a number of occasions articulated reasons why the reliability of such statements is actually suspect, requiring corroboration or separate showings of trustworthiness. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 130-31, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999)([W]e have over the years `spoken with one voice in declaring presumptively unreliable accomplices' confessions that incriminate defendants.)(quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)); Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305, 313 (Colo.2001)(holding that a codefendant's statements inculpating the defendant are presumptively unreliable). The dangers inherent in statements that seek to shift blame to another or cast the declarant's role in more favorable terms, however, are not present in all admissions of codefendants that might also prove disadvantageous to the defendant. The reasons that have been identified in these cases for presuming statements inculpating others to be unreliable are limited to statements that facially inculpate others or are intended by the declarant to do so. While a statement that minimizes the declarant's culpability by implicating a third party is not one that a reasonable person would refrain from making unless he believed it to be true, a statement admitting the declarant's own felonious conduct, while expressly excluding others, is precisely the kind of statement envisioned by the rule. Even a genuinely self-inculpatory statement by someone other than the defendant that facially inculpates only the declarant may be relevant in a trial of the defendant. It has long been recognized that proof that a defendant was an accomplice to a crime not only allows but in fact requires proof that someone else acted as the principal. See People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 382, 513 P.2d 446, 450-51 (1973); People v. Knapp, 180 Colo. 280, 283-84, 505 P.2d 7, 9-10 (1973). In Williamson, the Supreme Court acknowledged that even under its narrow reading of the exception for statements against interest, a declarant's squarely self-inculpatory confession will likely be admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) against accomplices of his who are being tried under a coconspirator liability theory. 512 U.S. at 603, 114 S.Ct. 2431. [12] While it is to longer necessary in this jurisdiction to distinguish principals of various degrees and accomplices, a person clearly remains legally accountable for the behavior of another whom he intentionally aids or abets in committing an offense. See § 18-1-603, 6 C.R.S. (2001)(Complicity). Evidence that another person committed a crime is therefore logically relevant to the extent that other evidence tends to show he did not act alone and that the defendant was probably a person who aided him or conspired with him. Apart from liability for the behavior of another, as by complicity, evidence that the maker of a statement against penal interest and another person committed a crime, in conjunction with evidence that the defendant was likely to have been with the maker of the statement at the time of the crime, is evidence that logically tends to prove the defendant was the other person committing the crime. See People v. Haston, 69 Cal.2d 233, 70 Cal.Rptr. 419, 444 P.2d 91 (1968)(conjunction of accomplice with defendant in earlier robberies, together with his admitted involvement in charged robbery, supports inference that defendant and not some other person was accomplice in the charged offense). Even a statement that admits only the declarant's commission of a preparatory act is somewhat probative of his involvement, and through him the defendant's participation, in the charged offense. Here, codefendant Rodarte admitted stealing the car used in the robbery in a statement expressly exculpating the defendant of any criminal involvement in either the car theft or the robbery. Along with other evidence, however, including physical evidence further linking Rodarte to the crime and testimonial evidence linking Rodarte and the defendant during the period in question, the admission made it more likely that the defendant was one of the two robbers, acting together, than would have been the case from evidence of the defendant's participation alone. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Rodarte's statement admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Neither do I believe the court's admission of the out-of-court statement violated the Confrontation Clause. Admittedly, the Confrontation Clause requires more of statements made by a declarant who is not present and subject to cross-examination than that they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. It requires that they either fall within a firmly rooted exception or contain particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. In light of the construction that we have given CRE 804(b)(3), making it broader than the corresponding federal rule, it is clear that some statements admissible pursuant to this exception would not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. See People v. Farrell, 34 P.3d 401, 405-06 (Colo.2001); Stevens, 29 P.3d at 313. As noted by the Supreme Court, however, the very fact that a statement is genuinely self-inculpatory ... is itself one of the `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' that makes a statement admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Williamson, 512 U.S. at 605, 114 S.Ct. 2431. Without considering whether a hearsay exception can be subdivided into those portions that are firmly rooted and those that are not, see generally United States v. Flores, 985 F.2d 770, 775-80 (5th Cir.1993), it is enough that the statement in this case is genuinely self-inculpatory, without any suggestion of shifting blame to the defendant or seeking to place the declarant in a light more favorable than the defendant, and therefore it contains the constitutionally required guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite the failure of the narrow statement that was admitted in this case to even mention the defendant, the majority finds it to be inferentially inculpatory of the defendant and therefore presumptively unreliable. It is not entirely clear to me whether the majority intends that no statement of a codefendant offered by the prosecution at the defendant's trial can be considered genuinely self-inculpatory; that under the specific circumstances of this case, the codefendant's statement is not genuinely self-inculpatory; or that even genuinely self-inculpatory statements may not be offered against someone other than the declarant without a showing of more particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Because the Supreme Court has held that the very fact that a statement is genuinely self-inculpatory is itself one of the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness that makes a statement admissible under the Confrontation Clause, I disagree that any more particularized showing is required for genuinely self-inculpatory statements. Because it seems clear to me that a statement becomes suspect by shifting blame only if that could have been the intent of the declarant, I disagree that a statement can lose its genuinely self-inculpatory character merely by being offered by the prosecution at trial. And with regard to the genuinely self-inculpatory nature of the statement in this case, I cannot understand how a statement expressly exculpating the defendant of any involvement in either the theft of the getaway car or the robbery, and implicitly laying blame on four other Hispanic men to whom the stolen car was allegedly sold, can conceivably be characterized as attempting to shift the blame for the robbery to the defendant. See maj. op. at 198 - 199. IV. CONCLUSION Because I do not consider it necessary to remand for further findings of historical fact and because I would find that admission of the codefendant's self-inculpatory statement was not an abuse of discretion or violative of the defendant's right to confrontation, I would affirm. I therefore respectfully dissent.