Opinion ID: 1111382
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Photographic Display.

Text: The  Wade Trilogy and its progeny are the guidelines this Court must follow in determining the competency of identification testimony. York v. State, 413 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Miss. 1983). York is the leading case in Mississippi on this issue and has been followed by this Court on numerous occasions. See e.g., Davis v. State, 510 So.2d 794 (Miss. 1987); White v. State, 507 So.2d 98 (Miss. 1987); Jones v. State, 504 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 1987); Smith v. State, 492 So.2d 260 (Miss. 1986). As pointed out in York, there are two lines of analysis when considering pre-trial identifications: the Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis and the Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel analysis. Mr. Nicholson raises both points in his assignment of error, claiming that the photographic display was suggestive and that it was conducted in the absence of his legal counsel. In United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 37 L.Ed.2d 619 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted ... for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender. Ash at 321, 93 S.Ct. at 2579. Therefore, this aspect of Mr. Nicholson's argument is without merit. His argument under the due process analysis has to do with suggestiveness of the photographic display. He points out that he was the only one of the six men who was pictured with bare arms, prominently displaying his tattoo, a characteristic described to police by Ms. McKinion. Such is undeniably a suggestive photographic display. See Bankston v. State, 391 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Miss. 1980) (holding that showing the victim only one photograph of a man with a mustache was impermissibly suggestive). A series of photographs where one is conspicuously singled out in some manner from others ... is impermissibly suggestive. York at 1383, citing Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969) and Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). However, an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification does not preclude in-court identification by an eyewitness who viewed the suspect at the procedure unless: (1) from the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, (2) the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. York at 1383, citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967) and Simmons, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). York continues that even if testimony is proffered of the out-of-court identification itself, as was done in this case, the same standard applies, except with the omission of the word irreparable, a slightly higher burden of proof for the state. York at 1383, citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). York goes on to set out the Neil factors to consider in determining whether these standards have been fulfilled: 1. Opportunity of the witness to view the accused at the time of the crime; 2. The degree of attention exhibited by the witness; 3. The accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; 4. The level of certainty exhibited by the witness at the confrontation; 5. The length of time between the crime and the confrontation. York at 1383; Neil, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382. See also Ray v. State, 503 So.2d at 223. Applying these factors to the present case,
Ms. McKinion testified that at the time of the attack, the lighting in her bedroom was sufficient to permit her to observe her assailant's face and parts of his body. The man remained in the bedroom about 15 minutes. She also observed him under the kitchen light for five or ten minutes, and in her living room for another 15 or 20 minutes. This testimony shows ample opportunity for Ms. McKinion to observe her assailant.
During her observation of her assailant, Ms. McKinion noticed he had a short, neat haircut, a little mustache, a space between his front teeth, and a tattoo with the letters IOA on his arm, and a scar on his rib cage.
Officer Allen testified that Ms. McKinion provided the above description when she first reported the rape. This turned out to be an accurate description of Mr. Nicholson.
Upon viewing the photographic display, Ms. McKinion immediately identified Mr. Nicholson.
The photographic display was conducted only six days after the crime. There is ample credible evidence to support the trial court's determination that there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification in allowing the in-court identification, nor was there substantial likelihood of misidentification in allowing the testimony of the out-of-court identification itself.