Opinion ID: 1829968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: In-Court Eyewitness Identification Testimony

Text: Hansen argues that the Circuit Court erred when it refused to suppress the in-court identification testimony of Daisy Morgan, Beatrice Ladner, Pat Ladner, Kathy Romany, Donald Meche, Steve Diaz. The point implicates the familiar standards of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), accepted by this Court in York v. State, 413 So.2d 1372 (Miss. 1982) and progeny. Only pretrial identifications which are suggestive, without necessity for conducting them in such manner, are proscribed. A lineup or series of photographs in which the accused, when compared with the others, is conspicuously singled out in some manner from the others, either from appearance or statements by an officer, is impermissibly suggestive. (citations omitted) A show up in which the accused is brought by an officer to the eyewitness is likewise impermissibly suggestive where there is no necessity for doing so. (citations omitted). An impermissibly suggestive pretrial 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. Even if testimony is proffered of the out-of-court identification itself, the same standard exists as to the above, with the omission of the word irreparable. York, 413 So.2d at 1383. We have observed these standards numerous times. Wilson v. State, 574 So.2d 1324, 1327 (Miss. 1990); Magee v. State, 542 So.2d 228, 232-33 (Miss. 1989); White v. State, 532 So.2d 1207, 1213-14 (Miss. 1988); Nicholson v. State, 523 So.2d 68, 71-72 (Miss. 1988); Davis v. State, 510 So.2d 794, 796 (Miss. 1987); see also, Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 37 (Miss. 1990). In today's case we have considered the point with care, for it is not clear any of these witnesses had much opportunity to see and observe Hansen on the evening of April 10. We accept that the decision is for the Circuit Court in the first instance. That Court must consider, when evaluating the likelihood of misidentification: (1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) The witness's degree of attention; (3) The accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; (4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witnesses at the confrontation; and (5) The length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382, 34 L.Ed.2d at 411; Wilson, 574 So.2d at 1328; Magee, 542 So.2d at 232. In the case of each of the witnesses at issue, the Circuit Court carefully considered the evidence and made a finding of fact to the effect that, the witness having been on the scene on the evening of April 10, 1987, his or her present in-court identification of Hansen had not been impermissibly tainted by prior exposure to line-up photographs and the like. Our scope of review in such matters is familiar. The combined effect of the circuit court's pretrial and trial rulings is that of a finding of fact that, under the totality of the circumstance ... in-court identification testimony had not been impermissibly obtained. We may, or course, disturb such a finding only where there is an absence of substantial credible evidence supporting it. Magee v. State, 542 So.2d 228, 231 (Miss. 1989) (quoting Nicholson v. State, 523 So.2d 68, 71 (Miss. 1988) [quoting Ray v. State, 503 So.2d 222, 224 (Miss. 1986)]). This Court's task is determining whether, in the case before it, there was substantial credible evidence supporting the trial judge's findings. Nicholson, 523 So.2d at 71. Considered in this context, we may not fairly say the Circuit Court acted impermissibly in the case of any of these six witnesses.