Court Opinion

ID: 9885168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:35:05.666507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:45.048511
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
Justice STUMBO.
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe Appellant should be entitled to a new trial due to the trial court’s failure to exclude the out-of-court and in-court identification of Appellant made by witness Karen Ross (cashier # 3).
First, I believe that the photo array shown to witnesses Ross and Devonda Carnes (cashier #2) was unduly suggestive. Most all descriptions of the suspect indicated that he was a black man in his mid to late thirties, approximately six feet tall, wearing eyeglasses and a blue and white jacket. Ross’s prior written description of the suspect merely indicated that he was a black male. The photo array showed to the witnesses depicted five black men ages 18, 20, 20, 21, and 24, and Appellant who was 37 years old at the time. Also, only two of the men were less than six feet tall — Appellant who was 5'10" and the 18-year-old man who was 5'8". Most importantly, Appellant was the only one in the array who was wearing eyeglasses and a jacket.
[A] photograph identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive only when elements in the photographs other than minor variations in the physical features of the individuals pictured mislead witnesses in making their identifications, e.g. where the witness describes a criminal as wearing a hat, and the defendant is the only one wearing a hat, or where dates are written on the photographs, and the defendant’s photograph is the only one with a date close to the time when the crime of which he is accused occurred.
Adkins v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 647 S.W.2d 502, 504-505 (1982). Further illustration of the undue suggestiveness of the identification procedure is evidenced by the fact that Ross was only able to identify Appellant after Carnes first identified Appellant in Ross’s presence.
Although in my opinion the photo array was unduly suggestive, the in-court identifications could still be admissible if each was found to be reliable. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). I agree with the majority that Carnes’s identification was probably reliable because initially she gave a fairly detailed and ultimately accurate description of the suspect. Ross’s statement that was written before viewing the photo array, however, only described the suspect as a black man. At trial, Ross testified that she remembered the suspect to be of medium height, with a blue and white windbreaker, dark hat, glasses, and a moustache. But when questioned by the Commonwealth about why she did not include these facts in her initial description, Ross stated, “what I remembered most was the fact that he was a black man, the other details as far as the hat ... I didn’t ....” She also stated that she specifically remembered the particular items purchased by Appellant and that his hands were black (suggesting her gaze was fixed downward during the transaction). It is also important to note that Ross was not aware a crime was occurring while processing Appellant’s transaction, and was not made aware of that fact until the next day; therefore, there would be no reason for the particular transaction to stand out *653to a cashier who had presumably waited on numerous people that day during the Christmas season at Wal-Mart (Ross testified that she waited on Appellant around 5:45 p.m. and that her shift ended at 6:00 p.m.). It was then another two days before Ross was taken to the police station to view the photo array.
Each of the facts above weigh heavily in favor of the likelihood that Ross misidentified her last customer on the day in question. To further compound the error, Ross watched as her co-worker, Carnes, identified Appellant from the photo array. “An identification procedure by two or more witnesses in the presence of each other is ‘fraught with dangers of suggestion.’ ” Rudd v. Florida, 343 F.Supp. 212, 220 (M.D.Fla.1972) (quoting United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 234, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)). The Sixth Circuit denounced this very procedure in United States v. Bridgefourth, 538 F.2d 1251 (6th Cir.1976). There, the court stated, “[w]e do specifically disapprove of any consultation of witnesses engaged in inspecting displays of photographs during police attempts to identify an offender.” Id. at 1253. Other courts have held the simultaneous identification by witnesses to be impermissibly suggestive. See Monteiro v. Picard, 443 F.2d 311 (1st Cir.1971) (holding in-court identifications by witnesses were tainted due to simultaneous viewing and consultation with another witness who had strong personality and who had identified suspect first); United States v. Wilson, 435 F.2d 403 (D.C.Cir.1970) (discussing the impropriety of joint identifications by two or more witnesses); United States ex rel. Choice v. Brierley, 363 F.Supp. 178, 188 (E.D.Pa.1973) (finding joint viewing unduly suggestive and stating that “the reliability of such joint identifications has been repeatedly discredited as ‘fraught with dangers of suggestion’ ”); State v. Morris, 97 Idaho 420, 546 P.2d 375, 378 (1976) (stating that law enforcement should avoid having witnesses make identifications from photo array in the presence of one another, as “[t]he faulty procedure may well render evidence of the photographic lineup inadmissible”); People v. Leite, 52 A.D.2d 895, 383 N.Y.S.2d 71 (N.Y.App.Div.1976) (suppressing photographic identification and stating, “[i]n our opinion, having the three victims examine the mug shots together was fraught with danger. The possibility, and even the likelihood, that an identification by one of the viewers would influence or cause an identification by the others was patent”).
Here, Ross had the benefit of first observing Carnes identify Appellant from the photo pack. This identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive that it may well have given rise to a “substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” by Ross. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Therefore, it is my opinion that the trial judge’s decision to allow the out-of-court and in-court identification by Ross was clearly erroneous. See Biggers, supra. I also cannot agree that the inclusion of Ross’s testimony was harmless error. Clearly, there was not overwhelming proof of guilt in this case. Appellant was apprehended on the street shortly after the alleged theft and was not found with the stolen credit card or any of the purchases. Therefore, I am not prepared to say that the constitutional error committed in this case was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 695 S.W.2d 854 (1985).
COOPER and KELLER, JJ„ join this dissent.