Opinion ID: 2078760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Suppression of Evidence on Identity

Text: Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress testimony by store employees who could identify Hadley as the purchaser of the ant poison, claiming that the testimony resulted from an impermissibly suggestive photographic line-up. The motion was still pending when trial commenced. When the first of these witnesses took the stand, defense counsel reminded the court of the pending motion and requested a hearing outside the presence of the jury. The jury was conducted out, and both counsel questioned the witness about her identification of the defendant. The witness had been unable to identify appellant from a series of six black-and-white photographs, five of which were disguised mug shots and one of which was a Polaroid picture of Hadley. She did identify Hadley from a second collection of color photographs. Upon interrogation by counsel, the witness asserted that her ability to identify Hadley in court arose solely from seeing him in the store and not from the pictures. When both attorneys had finished questioning the witness, the court denied Hadley's motion to suppress. Counsel asserts that the brevity of this procedure denied him the opportunity to establish that the witness' identification was based on unduly suggestive photographic line-ups. However, there is no indication what additional witnesses might exist to establish this fact and the photographs themselves are not in the record. The in-court identification testimony by a witness subjected to an impermissibly suggestive photo array is admissible if the prosecution presents clear and convincing evidence of an independent basis for the identification made in court. Remsen v. State (1981), Ind, 428 N.E.2d 241. To determine whether this independent basis exists, the trial court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the witness' opportunity to observe the perpetrator at the scene of the crime, as well as facts regarding suggestive confrontation. Id. In this case the witness testified that she remembered Hadley because she thought he was attempting to rob the store. She said his appearance was distinctive because he was large and wore an unique hairstyle. She insisted her identification was based on her view of Hadley in the store and not on the photo arrays or the detectives' comments. This was an adequate independent basis for her identification in court and the testimony was admissible, notwithstanding any impermissibly suggestive photo array.