Court Opinion

ID: 9782997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:35:18.660103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:18.564972
License: Public Domain

WEIMER, J.,
dissenting.
| fin suppressing the identification in this case, the district court carefully considered the factors outlined in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and articulated the reasons why she concluded the identification was suggestive and there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure. The standard of *212review of a district court’s ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. Bickham, 404 So.2d 929 (La.1981). Applying that standard in this case, I find the district court’s ruling, which was based on the court’s ability to view first hand the photographs used in the line-up identification and to assess the credibility of the witnesses, was within the court’s discretion. The State’s application for writ of certiorari should be denied.