Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Photographic and eyewitness identification

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court, by admitting Cebreros's testimony identifying defendant as the person who committed the offenses, violated defendant's federal constitutional right to due process of law. Defendant maintains that Cebreros's initial identification was based upon an impermissibly suggestive photographic lineup, and his subsequent in-court identification of defendant was based upon the earlier improper identification. Defendant challenged the photographic identification only following the prosecutor's case-in-chief, as part of a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1 on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, attacking Cebreros's credibility in part because of the suggestive photo line-up utilized by the police. Defendant's failure to assert a timely objection results in a waiver of the issue. (Evid. Code, ง 353; People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th 694, 753, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2; see People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 979, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Even if we were to overlook the untimeliness of defendant's objection and deem the section 1118.1 motion adequate to preserve the issue, however, we would conclude that Cebreros's identification of defendant was properly admitted. In order to determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates a defendant's right to due process of law, we consider (1) whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary, and, if so, (2) whether the identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances, taking into account such factors as the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the offense, the witness's degree of attention at the time of the offense, the accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the level of certainty demonstrated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of time between the offense and the identification. ( Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) 432 U.S. 98, 104-107, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140; Neil v. Biggers (1972) 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401; People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 412, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442; People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1216, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1; People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1242, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251.) The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of an unreliable identification procedure. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th 353, 412, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442; People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1222, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210.) The question is whether anything caused defendant to `stand out' from the others in a way that would suggest the witness should select him. ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 367, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708.) Defendant urges that among the six individuals depicted in the photographic lineup, his photograph, placed in the center of the top row, is the only one in which the subject had three of the features noted by the eyewitnessesโglasses, a goatee, and a suit and tie. We have examined the photographic lineup and observe that all six men are wearing glasses; at least one of the other men is dressed in a three-piece suit, and another is wearing a suit jacket. All of the men have a mustache and some have other facial hair. Several have a hairstyle similar to that of defendant. Defendant was not the tallest, shortest, oldest, or youngest of the participants. His photograph was similar to that of the others. ( People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th 312, 367, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708.) Moreover, there must be a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification under the `totality of the circumstances' to warrant reversal of a conviction on this ground. ( Manson v. Brathwaite, supra, 432 U.S. 98, 104-107, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140.) In the present case, there is no substantial likelihood that Cebreros misidentified defendant when he viewed the six photographs. Cebreros had had an opportunity while in the Pair of Aces bar to notice defendant, who was dressed distinctively. When outside, Cebreros had an opportunity to view defendant for several minutes before defendant shot Treto and Cebreros started to run. Cebreros described defendant to the police at the hospital following the shooting. Prior to examining the photographs, Cebreros was instructed that he was not to assume the person who committed the crime was pictured therein, that it was equally important to exonerate the innocent, and that he had no obligation to identify anyone. Without equivocation, Cebreros identified defendant as the man who had shot him. Defendant has not met his burden of establishing unreliability in the totality of the circumstances under federal constitutional standards.