Opinion ID: 2775227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Britt’s Identification of Mr. Griffin

Text: ¶ 43 Mr. Griffin argues that a remand is necessary to supplement the record with facts related to Mr. Britt’s identification of Mr. Griffin. However, we determine that remand is not necessary on this issue. At trial, the State called Mr. Britt to testify that, while in jail, Mr. Britt overheard Mr. Griffin confess to the murder. However, at the beginning of the State’s direct examination, Mr. Britt conceded that he could not identify Mr. Griffin in the courtroom and defense counsel objected to his testimony. The court acknowledged that Mr. Griffin looked substantially different at trial than he had in prison and therefore 46 See Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 791 (2011) (―In many instances cross-examination will be sufficient to expose defects in an expert’s presentation.‖); Jones v. Suthers, 130 Fed. App’x 235, 242–43 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that counsel was not ineffective in calling a rebuttal expert because ―[c]ounsel was able to cover the same ground in cross-examination that she would have if she had called her own expert witness‖). 47 Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 791. 48 Following cross-examination of Dr. Melton, defense counsel stated, ―I think we covered everything on cross-examination that I would put on with [Dr.] Hampikian, so we rest.‖ 18 Cite as: 2015 UT 18 Opinion of the Court ruled that Mr. Britt could testify if he could identify an older photo of Mr. Griffin from a photo lineup. Subsequently, and while Mr. Griffin was outside the courtroom, Mr. Britt did identify Mr. Griffin from the lineup, and he was allowed to continue his testimony. Mr. Griffin now argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the identification process. Mr. Richards submitted an affidavit stating that when Mr. Britt left the witness stand after failing to identify Mr. Griffin in the courtroom, he was led ―directly in front of [the defense] table‖ and he ―look[ed] closely at Griffin as he passed.‖ ¶ 44 Remand is unnecessary on this issue because the record reflects that Mr. Britt was on the witness stand and therefore had an opportunity to observe Mr. Griffin in the courtroom before the photo lineup. Thus, it is not necessary to supplement the record with additional facts that Mr. Britt stared at Mr. Griffin.