Opinion ID: 1700356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Sixth Requested Charge

Text: Experimental psychologists agree that perception depends to a great extent on what is already in the mind of the perceiver; one learns to perceive selectively. . . . These findings suggest that once a witness' report has been changed according to some minimum inducement and subtle pressure, self-persuasion regarding the truth of statements is likely to occur, and be difficult, if not impossible to rectify . . . . Many current police techniques regarding the handling of both suspect interrogation and lineup identification reflect, perhaps unknowingly, a highly sophisticated application of the various psychological principles outlined above. . . These widespread practices on the part of police suggest a shrewd, pragmatic grasp of the dynamics of suggestion. This situation raises two issues for the criminal justice system: whether police practices which utilize principles of suggestibility result in correct identifications, and whether these methods are consistent with societal norms of justice even if the resulting identifications are correct . . . . Defense counsel argues that this trial was hotly contested and the question of identification was crucial. Throughout the trial the defense attempted to present to the jury evidence and testimony relative to the vagaries of the eyewitness identifications made by the witnesses. The accuracy of their testimony was explored on cross-examination. He asserts that the sixth charge is a quote from United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and is therefore a correct statement of the law. The State's answer to these contentions is to refer the Court to the general charges of the trial judge on the accuracy of eyewitness identification which are quoted herewith: However, just as you must evaluate the evidence in light of your own common experience you must understand that human beings share one universal characteristicthat of fallibility; there are no absolutes. One of the foremost hinderances to perfection of your judicial system is that of unintentional mistaken identity of the accused by an eyewitness to the crime. This is not to say that the identification is not felt to be an honest one, or one founded on the vindictiveness of the victim or witness to the crime. We as sensitive human beings are above that. It is simply an honestly made mistake of dire consequences. These charges fairly and adequately cover the subject of the requested charges which were denied. These instructions were sufficient to instruct the jury on the law so that it could apply this law to the evidence. A requested charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. La.Code Crim.P. Art. 807; State v. Bastida, 310 So.2d 629 (La.1975); State v. Williams, 310 So.2d 528 (La.1975).