Opinion ID: 891666
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of an In-Court Identification of Defendant

Text: {56} Two weeks after Green was stabbed, his sister showed the Quality Inn receptionist, with whom she previously had worked, a photograph of Defendant to see if the receptionist recognized him. The receptionist immediately responded: That's the guy. Defendant argues that the receptionist's subsequent in-court identification of Defendant as the man she spoke with and saw around the hotel several times, including the date of the stabbing, was inadmissible as a product of an unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification procedure. The parties have neither raised nor briefed any issue about the lack of any involvement by a state actor in the display of the photograph to the witness; in view of our conclusion that the in-court identification was not tainted by the pretrial photo showing, we find it unnecessary to consider the issue. See Lynn M. Talutis, Admissibility of In-Court Identification as Affected by Pretrial Encounter that was not Result of Action by Police, Prosecutors, and the Like, 86 A.L.R. 5th 463 (2001) (To suppress an in-court identification that follows an allegedly suggestive pretrial encounter, courts have traditionally required that the pretrial encounter have resulted from some type of government action.). {57} In the absence of exigent circumstances, an out-of-court identification procedure using only one suspect or photograph is impermissibly suggestive. State v. Nolan, 93 N.M. 472, 476, 601 P.2d 442, 446 (Ct.App.1979). Ultimately, however, the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony is whether the testimony is reliable. State v. Baca, 99 N.M. 754, 758, 664 P.2d 360, 364 (1983). In Baca, we relied on a line of United States Supreme Court precedents establishing the independent source test: the issue is whether the witness is identifying the defendant solely on the basis of his memory of events at the time of the crime, or whether he is merely remembering the person he picked out in a pretrial procedure. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 122, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). {58} In this case, the district judge took testimony out of the presence of the jury from the receptionist-witness, the sister who had shown her the photo, and an investigating officer who had later conducted a proper identification process with the witness. {59} The receptionist testified that she had observed and talked with Defendant several days before the day of the stabbing, when he approached her and discussed several matters, including the scheduling of the alcohol server class that was to be held the day of the stabbing. She testified that she also observed Defendant loitering around the hotel three or four separate times on the day of the stabbing. On one of these occasions, Defendant approached her and initiated a conversation to find out when the alcohol server class would be recessed for lunch. She was able to describe Defendant's physical features, manner of speech, and the clothing he wore on the day of the stabbing. When asked whether seeing the single photo influenced her memories about her observations and identification of Defendant, the witness responded, Absolutely not. According to the investigating officer, the receptionist unhesitatingly identified Defendant from a non-suggestive pretrial police photo array. {60} The totality of the circumstances strongly supports the trial court's findings that the witness's identification of Defendant was reliable and was not influenced by the out-of-court identification. Once a court finds that the evidence is admissible, it becomes a jury determination as to the accuracy of a witness' identification. State v. Cheadle, 101 N.M. 282, 286, 681 P.2d 708, 712 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025, 146 N.M. 357, 210 P.3d 783. Even though the State did not elicit testimony of the pretrial photo identification before the jury, the trial court properly permitted defense counsel to raise and explore the subject, for whatever weight the jury chose to give it. The court followed the correct procedures in dealing with the matter, and the record amply supports the decision to permit the receptionist's in-court identification of Defendant as the man she had seen and conversed with at the hotel.