Opinion ID: 1745399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suppression of the in-court identification.

Text: Hanson claims the trial court should have refused to allow the girl's in-court identification of him as her assailant. He argues the identification procedure was conducted in such an improper manner that the identification is unreliable. The argument is based upon several claimed improprieties in the investigation process, including the showing of sketches and several one-person showups without a record of these activities. However, Hanson's main claim is that in June of 1988 the girl observed him at the police station and said he was not her attacker, making her later identification of him unreliable. At the hearing to consider the motion to suppress the in-court identification, Hanson offered testimony that on the morning of June 13, 1988, two law enforcement officers went to his house and asked him to come down to the police station. Hanson says he went to the station and answered questions regarding this case. He claimed the officer conducting the investigation asked him if he would mind if someone came down to look at him. Hanson said he would not mind, so the officer had the girl come to the police station. When the girl arrived, Hanson says she looked at him and told the officer he was not her attacker. In contrast, the State offered testimony that Hanson was never called to the police station for questioning. Rand testified that he never interviewed Hanson, and the reason he went to Hanson's house was to look for Hanson's brother, whose car had been identified in another case. The officer accompanying Rand likewise testified that the reason they went to Hanson's house was to check on a suspect vehicle in a rape case and Hanson's brother was the owner of that vehicle. Rand claims that Hanson's brother came to the police station later and was questioned by someone. In addition, the girl testified that she was called to the station to look at a man and a car, and she identified a picture of Hanson's brother as the person she saw when she was called to the police station for that purpose. The evidentiary rulings of a circuit court will be disturbed only if the court abused its discretion. State v. Bartlett, 411 N.W.2d 411 (S.D.1987); accord State v. Wedemann, 339 N.W.2d 112 (S.D.1983). In-court identifications will be suppressed when they stem from a procedure that is so impermissibly suggestive as to result in a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Iron Thunder, 272 N.W.2d 299, 301 (S.D.1978); accord State v. Jaeb, 442 N.W.2d 463 (S.D.1989); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). The party seeking to suppress the in-court identification bears the burden of establishing the impermissible suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Id. The suggestiveness of the procedure is evaluated by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the identification procedure. Jaeb, supra . Under the totality of the circumstances, if there is not a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, then the reliability of an in-court identification is for the jury to weigh. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2254, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 155 (1977): We are content to rely upon 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. Hanson has not met his burden of establishing the impermissible suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Although there are questions about the identification procedure, they do not rise to the level of a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. If the testimony of the State's witnesses is believed, then it is unlikely any particular identification was suggested. Furthermore, the girl got a good look at her attacker on three separate occasions, making it unlikely that she would be confused about the identity of the attacker. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to determine the reliability of the identification.