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

Heading: Spontaneity, Consistency, And Suggestibility Of The Identification

Text: ¶ 44 Under the fourth Ramirez factor, relevant circumstances include the length of time that passed between the witness's observation at the time of the event and the identification of defendant; the witness's mental capacity and state of mind at the time of the identification; the witness's exposure to opinions, descriptions, identifications, or other information from other sources; instances when the witness or other eyewitnesses to the event failed to identify defendant; instances when the witness or other eyewitnesses gave a description of the actor that is inconsistent with defendant; and the circumstances under which defendant was presented to the witness for identification. Id. at 783.
¶ 45 Approximately two months lapsed between the robbery and Channing Jones's and Contreras's identifications of Hollen from the photo array; the lineup identifications occurred approximately one year and three months after the robbery. ¶ 46 In contrast, the Ramirez witness identified the actor thirty minutes to an hour after the crime at a show up, so the elapsed time was [comparatively] minimal. Id. at 783.
¶ 47 Regarding this subfactor, the trial court concluded that the mental capacity of the witnesses was impressive.... We further note that the witnesses had at least two months to recover from the stress of the robbery before their identifications. ¶ 48 In Ramirez, although we had some concerns that the witness might still be somewhat agitated when he identified the actor within an hour of the robbery, we found his state of mind did not otherwise influence his identification. Id. at 783.
¶ 49 Regarding the possibility that outside influence tainted the witnesses' identifications, the trial court found that the evidence tends to show there was not [sic] exposure to other opinions regarding the identification of the defendant at least until after the lineup. ¶ 50 In challenging this factual finding, Hollen first points out that Livolsi and Pittman saw the composite that Channing Jones and Contreras helped prepare the day of the robbery. Hollen claims, in effect, that Livolsi's and Pittman's later identifications of Hollen were unconsciously based on their exposure to the composite rather than their own independent recollection of the disguised robber. Hollen's claim is not supported by the clear weight of the evidence, however. To the contrary, the evidence shows Livolsi and Pittman had an opportunity to observe the disguised robber on the day of the robbery. In addition, the court noted that the witnesses themselves had indicated that their identifications were not based on outside influence. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in discounting the significance of the witnesses' exposure to the composite. ¶ 51 Hollen also points out that Channing Jones told Livolsi about seeing the disguised man, whom Jones later identified as Hollen, on television. However, we see little evidence that Livolsi based his subsequent identification on this conversation. Indeed, Hollen does not claim that Livolsi ever saw the television report or otherwise gained insights about Hollen's appearance from his conversations with Channing Jones. At most, Jones's assertions may have caused Livolsi to expect that the lineup would include the disguised robber, but this possibility seems rather remote given that the lineup occurred one year after the television report. ¶ 52 Thus, the circumstances in this case are similar to the situation in Ramirez, where there also was little concern that the eyewitness identification was derivative of another witness's identification: in Ramirez, at the time of the identification, the witness knew only that police believed that the defendant matched the description of the suspect, and that another victim had not identified the suspect as one of the assailants. Id. at 783.
¶ 53 This subfactor clearly favors the eyewitness identifications in this case. The trial court found the consistency with which the[] witnesses have identified Hollen as the masked robber to be quite remarkable. Indeed, Contreras identified Hollen from the photo array, at the in-person lineup, and at trial; Livolsi and Pittman identified Hollen at the in-person lineup and at trial; and Channing Jones identified Hollen when he saw him on television, from the photo array, and at trial. Peterson and Janae Jones, for their part, picked both Hollen and another person at the lineup, although both opined the other person was the assailant. Thus, four of the six witnesses to the robbery consistently identified Hollen as the disguised robber. ¶ 54 In contrast, only one of the three eyewitnesses in Ramirez was able to identify the defendant. Id. at 783.
¶ 55 We next consider the consistency of the witnesses' descriptions of the disguised robber. Although the trial court made no specific findings in this regard, the record reveals some variation in the witnesses' descriptions of the disguised robber. For example, in contrast to the other witnesses, Pittman did not describe the disguised robber as wearing sunglasses. Moreover, unlike the other witnesseswho described the disguised robber as wearing a white t-shirt or tank top, and his accomplice as wearing a sweatshirtLivolsi remembered the disguised robber as wearing the sweatshirt. ¶ 56 In Ramirez, the descriptions [were also] somewhat confused. Id. For example, at a suppression hearing, the Ramirez witness initially stated positively that the actor wore no hat. This assertion conflicted with (1) another eyewitness's recollection that the actor wore a baseball cap, (2) the witness's later testimony at trial that he was unsure as to whether the actor wore a hat, (3) and the fact that the Ramirez defendant was wearing a baseball cap when taken into custody shortly after the robbery. Id. at 784. The inconsistencies regarding the hat were troubling because the witness claimed to have identified [the defendant] principally by his eyes, . . . [and a hat] would seem to affect a witness's view of the gunman's eyes. Id. ¶ 57 In contrast, the inconsistencies regarding the sunglasses and clothing in this case seem less consequential. Indeed, although Pittman did not describe the actor as wearing sunglasses, she did not claim to have identified Hollen based on his eyes. Similarly, Livolsi, who differed with the other witnesses regarding the actor's clothing, did not claim to have relied on what Hollen was wearing at the lineup in identifying him.
¶ 58 Concerning the suggestibility of the identification process, the trial court found that the photo array depicted six individuals with similar characteristics. Hollen disputes this conclusion, noting that Dr. Dodd opined that only three of the pictures matched the description of the disguised robber. However, Detective Dalling testified that to ensure Hollen did not stand out from anyone else, he had selected photographs where the age range, the shape of the chin, the shape of the head, the basic features of each one were similar. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err when, after examining the photographs for itself, it resolved these conflicting opinions in the State's favor. We also note that Dalling told Contreras and Channing Jones, the two witnesses who participated in the photo array identification procedure, that the array may or may not include the disguised robber. Such a precaution further reduces concerns over suggestibility. ¶ 59 Significantly, even if we were to accept Dr. Dodd's opinion that the array presented only three meaningful choices, this case would still compare favorably to Ramirez, where the witness identified the defendant at a blatant[ly] suggestive[] show up: The identification took place on the street in the middle of the night. Ramirez, with dark complexion and long hair, was the only person at the show up who was not a police officer. He stood with his hands cuffed to a chain link fence behind his back. The headlights of several police cars were trained on him. The witnesses viewed him from the back seat of a police car. And while the remarks of the police officers prior to the show up were to the effect that they had apprehended someone who fit the description of one of the robbers may not of themselves be unnecessarily suggestive, they must be considered as part of the circumstances surrounding the identification. Id.