Opinion ID: 2181904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The January 12, 1981 Identification[4]

Text: At the suppression hearing the lower court itself concluded that the photographic display shown by Detective Russell [to Pereau on January 12, 1981 prior to appellee's arrest] was not suggestive. (N.T. May 18, 1982 at 104) (emphasis added). Although the lower court has since decided that Pereau's January 12, 1981 identification was problematic and of questionable accuracy and reliability, the record is devoid of any evidence which would tend to support this finding. [5] (Lower Court Op. at 18). In fact the circumstances surrounding the Pereau robbery indicate that Pereau was well-qualified to identify at least one of his assailants. [6] Pereau testified that at approximately 1:00 a.m. on December 25, 1980, while he was stopped at a traffic signal at the intersection of 18th and Cumberland Streets in Philadelphia, his cab was approached by two men. Pereau stated that after he refused to accept the men as passengers, appellee pointed a gun at his face and demanded money. Pereau explained that although he complied with the demand, he was forced to exit his cab and lie on the ground while the two men searched him before they fled. According to Pereau, the entire episode lasted approximately four or five minutes. Significantly, Pereau testified that, at the time of the robbery, the intersection of 18th and Cumberland Streets was well-lit and that he was able to observe one of his assailants (allegedly appellee) clearly and at very close range. Additionally, Pereau stated, I looked at his [the gunman's] face, and when the man pointed the gun at me . . . I stared at him because I wanted to see what he looked like, because as far as I knew . . . it was my last breath. So I looked right smack in his face, so I can remember his face. (N.T. May 18, 1982 at 14). See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Woods, 275 Pa.Superior Ct. 392, 399, 418 A.2d 1346, 1350 (1980) ( en banc ), appeal dismissed, 498 Pa. 140, 445 A.2d 106 (1982) (victim's identification of her assailant reliable because brief view of attacker under adequate lighting would have seemed like an eternity); Commonwealth v. Rose, 265 Pa.Superior Ct. 159, 171, 401 A.2d 1148, 1155 (1979) (victim's identification reliable because victim had an opportunity to view his assailant for a period of ten seconds under a street light under circumstances when the most fleeting and most minute passage of time would seem like an eternity.); Commonwealth v. Bradford, 305 Pa.Superior Ct. 593, 597, 451 A.2d 1035, 1037 (1982) (in holding victim's in-court identification admissible where victim saw defendant's facial features at close range for three to four seconds while chasing him immediately after the robbery, this Court observed that, Whenever the victim of a crime has an opportunity to observe the criminal, the impression of the face of an assailant is etched upon the prey by the terror of the occasion.). Unquestionably, the robbery and the face of the gunman were still fresh in Pereau's mind when, on January 12, 1981, prior to appellee's arrest, he positively and unhesitatingly identified appellee's picture from a non-suggestive array of photographs. Furthermore, we find it significant that Pereau made no identification in the hours immediately following the robbery when the police failed to present him with a picture of appellee, but did show him more than 100 slides of individuals matching Pereau's description of the robbers. Therefore, we hold that it was error for the lower court to suppress Pereau's January 12 identification of appellee.