Court Opinion

ID: 9528707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:43:16.150827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:13.144793
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The evidence in this case unquestionably establishes that a burglary and rape occurred in the early morning hours of July 2,1982. P.C., the victim, was awakened by blows from a tiretool or crowbar. After this initial struggle, P.C. was raped and anally sodomized. Police later established P.C.’s assailant entered the house through a bedroom window. Physical evidence introduced at trial did not eliminate appellant as a suspect, but was inconclusive regarding the identity of P.C.’s assailant. The only issue disputed by the litigants involved the identity of P.C.’s assailant.
Based on the victim’s description of her attacker and her description of a car driven by a man who asked her for a date one week earlier, whom P.C. initially believed was the same man as her assailant, Ana-darko police arrested appellant. P.C. first identified appellant in a photographic lineup, and, later, at both the preliminary hearing and trial.
The defense introduced testimony purporting to show that blood found on the *187tire tool was the result of appellant’s fight with a third party. Another defense witness testified he was the person who asked P.C. for a date one week before the crime.
I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial based on appellant’s first and second assignments of error, which involve a challenge to the victim’s in-court identification. Appellant argues that the photographic line-up was unnecessarily suggestive, and created a likelihood of irreparably mistaken identification. Based on the unique circumstances surrounding this issue, I agree the admission of this identification testimony denied appellant due process of law, and accordingly dissent from the majority opinion.
The United States Supreme Court has held that “convictions based on eyewitness identification by photograph will be set aside [on due process grounds] if the photographic identification procedure was so im-permissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). See also Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Subsequent to Simmons, the Supreme Court explained that this test involves the evaluation of two independent factors: (1) whether the circumstances of the pre-trial confrontation were “unnecessarily suggestive,” and (2) whether the identification was nevertheless sufficiently reliable so as to diminish the significance of the suggestive procedures. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). See also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). Accord Gregg v. State, 662 P.2d 1385 (Okl.Cr.1983).
Turning to the facts of this case under the first prong of the Manson v. Brath-waite test, the normal procedure would be a review of the photographs to determine whether the line-up was unnecessarily suggestive. However, in this case, the photographs are not part of the record because the Anadarko police department lost or destroyed the photographic array. Defense counsel had requested a copy of the line-up, but the prosecutor failed to provide him with one. As a result, the photographs are not available for this Court to review.
In a similar situation, one in which an affidavit and search warrant were missing from the record, we held:
It seems to be well established, as a general rule, that where a defendant has done all that the law requires in perfecting his appeal, and where the record necessary for review of the case is lost or destroyed while in the custody of an officer of the court, in order to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice by depriving the defendant of his legal right to appeal, a new trial will be granted.
Hixon v. State, 456 P.2d 117, 118 Okl.Cr. 69, citing Bailey v. United States, 3 Okl.Cr. 175, 104 P. 917 (1909).
In this case, the defense not only discussed the photographic line-up in its motion for new trial and designation of record on appeal, but also requested copies of this exhibit during trial proceedings. The appellant has done all the law requires in perfecting this appeal, and now, through no fault of his own, the exhibit forming the central issue is missing. Because this error only goes to one prong of the Manson v. Brathwaite test, this case should not be reversed solely on this basis. However, I, for one, am compelled to give appellant the benefit of the doubt1 regarding this issue.
Turning to the reliability prong of the Manson v. Brathwaite formulation. I cannot agree with Judge Bussey’s conclusion that the identification by P.C. was otherwise independently reliable under the facts of this case. The reliability of identification is such that admission of the in-court *188identification should not be allowed to stand, absent a showing that the photographic line-up was not unnecessarily suggestive. In Neil v. Biggers, supra, the Supreme Court established factors to be considered in determining the reliability of the identification testimony. In Manson v. Brathwaite, the Court summarized the factors as including “the opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.” Id. 482 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253. See also Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777, 780 (Okl.Cr.1982).
P.C.’s opportunity to view her assailant at the time of the attack was poor. She testified at preliminary hearing that “there was no light on in the house. I had to go by the way his face felt when he was lying there, and by the shadow that was on him ...”. Although she testified at trial some light was available from a street lamp outside the living room window, she also recalled telling police immediately after the attack that she did not know what her assailant’s face looked like and could not recognize him.
P.C.’s level of attention was obviously quite high, and she was not a mere casual observer to the violent happenings in her home that night. But See, Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 33-36, 151, 153-156, 171-174, 214 (1979) (persuasively arguing based on psychological data, that a victim under stress is less likely to make an accurate identification). Conversely, her description of the attacker’s voice was inconsistent with descriptions by the arresting officer. Furthermore, the actual description of the assailant’s characteristics were given in general terms, and it is difficult, without appellant’s photograph, to reach any definite conclusion regarding the accuracy of the description.
Turning to the final two factors, the record shows P.C.’s certainty of identification strayed at times. P.C. stated unequivocally prior to trial that appellant was the same man who asked her for a date about a week prior to the attack. At trial, P.C. testified she was unsure if appellant was the same man. Although P.C. apparently identified appellant’s photograph with certainty, a tape recording made at the line-up was not preserved, and the statements were not transcribed before the tape was destroyed. Finally, the amount of time between the incident and the photographic identification was only one week.
Based on the witness’ poor opportunity to view her assailant at the time of the crime, her uncertainty of identification before the photographic line-up, and her waiv-ering level of certainty even after the photographic confrontation, it cannot be said, in my opinion, that the in-court identification was independently reliable.
I regret that this procedure creates the appearance that the victim, rather than the appellant, is “on trial,” so to speak. Had the photographs been properly preserved and included in the appellate record, a different result might have been reached, and I would readily concur in the majority opinion. Yet, under these circumstances, failure to include the challenged photographs in this record, together with the serious questions regarding the reliability of the identification, compels me to dissent.

. Statements exist in the transcript which are sufficient to raise at least a doubt in the appellant's favor regarding the suggestibility of the photographic array. Immediately following the assault, P.C. described her attacker as having a full beard that "went all the way around his face.” There is an indication that appellant was the only person in the photographs with a full beard.