Opinion ID: 2145030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reliability of the Witness In-Court Identification

Text: The defendant contends that the police procedures used at the photo lineups were so improperly suggestive that an eyewitness misidentified the defendant at trial. Brief of Appellant at 11. When there is no objection to the introduction of identification evidence at trial, the admissibility of the evidence is not drawn into question and the issue is not preserved for appeal. Harris v. State, 619 N.E.2d 577, 580 (Ind.1993). When a defendant fails to object to an in-court identification, the trial court is afforded no opportunity to reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress. Lee v. State, 519 N.E.2d 146, 147 (Ind.1988); Madden v. State, 549 N.E.2d 1030, 1032 (Ind.1990). The defendant filed a pretrial motion seeking to suppress all identification of the defendant by the eyewitness. The trial court did not complete its consideration of the motion until immediately before the commencement of trial. At that time, the court invited: On the Motion to Suppress Statement, do you have anything for the record? Record at 203. In response, both the defense and the State presented argument supporting their respective positions. The trial court then denied the defendant's Motion to Suppress and began the trial. During the morning of the second day of trial, the eyewitness made an in-court identification of the defendant, stating that she was sure that it was the defendant she saw come from the back of the house after she heard the gunshots. Record at 354. The defendant did not contemporaneously object to this in-court identification. Attempting to preserve the issue for this Court's review, the defendant contends that, during trial, outside the presence of the jury, Hollins objected to [the eyewitness's] in-court identification.... Brief of Appellant at 11. This misstates the record. The defendant's arguments were presented before, not during, the trial. His contentions were not contemporaneous objections to the testimony, but rather supported his pretrial Motion to Suppress. Because the defendant failed to object to the in-court identification at trial, we find the issue waived.