Opinion ID: 2543636
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nature Of The Event

Text: ¶ 60 The final Ramirez factor, whether the nature of the event was such that the witness would perceive, remember, and relate it correctly, includes such considerations as whether the event was an ordinary one in the mind of the observer during the time it was observed, and whether the race of the actor was the same as the observer's. Id. at 781. ¶ 61 Regarding this factor, the trial court concluded that the nature of the event tended to focus the attention of the witnesses on what was occurring. Although not specifically mentioned by the trial court, we note that Contreras and Livolsi, like the Ramirez witness, were aware from the outset that a robbery was taking place, id.; Channing Jones and Pittman apparently did not initially recognize the situation as a robbery, however, which may have caused them to initially pay relatively less attention to the robbers. ¶ 62 Regarding the second consideration included under this factor, neither party in this case alleges that racial similarity enhanced the reliability of the identifications or that racial differences detracted from the reliability. In Ramirez, we discounted the racial difference between the witness and actor in Ramirez because the identification was not based on features where this difference was a factor. Id. ¶ 63 Thus, in terms of this factor, the identifications of Contreras and Livolsi were comparable to that of the Ramirez witness, while those of Channing Jones and Pittman were perhaps slightly inferior.