Court Opinion

ID: 9724614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:04:42.341112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:03.071326
License: Public Domain

FORD, P. J.
I concur in the reversal of the judgment. I do not, however, agree with that portion of the opinion of the majority which holds that the lineup was not constitutionally inadequate and that the failure of the defendant’s attorney who was present at the lineup to make any objection at that time, pointing out the claimed unfairness, amounted to a waiver of the claim of constitutional inadequacy.
The lineup occurred about a year and a half after the homicide. At the hearing in the superior court on the issue of the fairness of the lineup, three photographs were introduced which showed the composition of the lineup. An examination of those photographs compels the conclusion that of the nine men in the lineup, in which the defendant was in the middle, none bore a reasonably similar physical resemblance to the defendant except possibly the man who stood immediately to the left of him. In my opinion, in the absence of countervailing evidence those photographs established as a matter of law that the lineup was unfair.
It is true that after the motion relating to the lineup was denied by the court, no further objection of the same nature was made in the course of the trial before the jury. But it would be to condone a denial of due process to hold that under the circumstances of this case the matter was not preserved for appellate review. (See People v. Morrow, 276 Cal.App.2d 700, 705 [81 Cal.Rptr. 201].)
That the unfairness of the lineup was of a prejudicial nature is manifest from the cross-examination of Bruce Cane, the only witness who positively identified the defendant as the killer. A portion of his testimony was: “Q. . . . Would it be fair to say that it was the lineup that finally cemented in your mind the fact that Mr. Stearns was the man you saw with the gun? A. Yes.” The conclusion that the real basis of the identification was an unfair lineup is supported by the following portions of Mr. Cane’s testimony on cross-examination: “Q. Calling your attention to People’s 2 which is a frontal view of the police lineup, right? A. Yes. . . . Q. You on your check list identified the man as No. 5? A. Yes. Q. And No. 5, either from *187left or right, turns out to be Mr. Stearns, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you see anyone else in that lineup with the same characteristics in your mind either height, weight, or complexion, or hair texture or matter of hair or standing gestures that is similar to Mr. Steam’s? A. (Looking at exhibit) Height. Yes. Weight, yes. ... A. Hair. . . . Q. Going back to my question, could you point out the similarities of those in height that are similar? A. Heightwise, I guess these (indicating). Q. Heightwise you are putting everybody with the same height based on the chalk mark? A. Yes. Q. . . . Weightwise? A. You have these two (indicating). Q. The man standing next to him? A. Yes. Q. How about complexion? A. It is a little hard from the photo. Q. . . . Would you say that one, two, three, four people to Mr. Steams’ left— . . . Q. —as you look at the picture, have darker complexion than Mr. Stearns? A. Yeah, three of ’em are, yes. Q. Would it be safe to say that they are Latin Americans? A. Yes. . . . Q. Now, we are going to the left of Mr. Stearns. Would you say that the three people to his immediate left ... are of darker complexion? A. No, two of them are. Q. The two immediately next to him? A. Yes. Q. Would you say they are Latin Americans, just looking at them? A. Or Indians. . . . Q. Now, how about the final two men over to the far left as you are looking at the picture? . . . Q. They are skinnier than Stearns, right? A. Yes. Q. They don’t fit the physical description, right? A. Yes. Q. The others don’t fit the complexion description? A. Right. . . . Q. We went through all the ones on weight and the ones that we found had similar weight turned out to be either a Latin American or Indian, is that correct? Now, look it over carefully. A. Yes. . . . A. Except for this one here (pointing). . . . Q. Okay. So the only one who really fits this description you gave as height, weight and complexion is Mr. Stearns? A. Yes.”
The record contains no testimony to overcome the inference that the constitutionally improper lineup fatally tainted Mr. Cane’s in-court identification. Upon a retrial, the trial court should be free to rehear in a plenary manner the defendant’s challenge of the constitutional adequacy of the lineup and its impact upon the testimony of the witness Bruce Cane as to the identity of the killer.
In view of the unfairness of the lineup as shown by the photographs, it is not reasonable to conclude that the attorney’s failure to testify was of substantial significance. Moreover, with respect to the question of waiver based on the asserted failure of that attorney “to make timely on-the-spot objection pointing out the claimed unfairness,” the record is devoid of any evidence that the lineup was conducted under such circumstances that the attorney was afforded a meaningful opportunity to make any objection. *188A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 669-670 [58 Cal.Rptr. 614, 427 P.2d 214].) The conclusion that there was a waiver of the constitutional right herein involved is without support in the record.