Court Opinion

ID: 9519322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:14:06.542038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:17.445772
License: Public Domain

*15Opinion Concurring in Result
Prentice, J.
The second issue of the majority opinion deals with the admission of testimony concerning a pretrial identification of the defendant. The witness was a rape victim, and she identified Defendant’s voice as that of her assailant after listening to a taped conversation in which he was being questioned in connection with the investigation of an unrelated rape. The majority indicates that this procedure was not suggestive, and it is with this conclusion that I disagree.
Although the testimony relating that the witness had identified Defendant’s voice would have been properly excluded due to the suggestive nature of the identification procedure, I concur in the result reached by the majority for two reasons. First the defendant did not base his objection to the admission of the evidence in question upon the suggestive nature of the identification procedure. Rather, he objected upon the ground that he had not had the opportunity to review the tape from which the identification was made. A proper and timely objection must be made at trial to preserve the error on appeal. Estelle v. Williams, (1976) 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126.
Second, the witness had identified the defendant during a properly conducted pre-trial line-up, and also had made an in-court identification. Both of these identifications were free of any taint from the suggestive voice identification, and were properly admitted. Since the voice identification was merely cumulative of properly admitted evidence, any error in its admission would, nevertheless, have been harmless.
In Cooper v. State, (1977) 265 Ind. 700, 359 N.E.2d 532, this Court stated:
“There is a generally recognized distinction between the admissibility of evidence relating the facts of an improperly conducted pre-trial identification and the admissibility of an in-court identification which is made without reference *16to the prior identification, Neil v. Biggers, (1972) 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401.”
In Indiana, the standard for the admission of evidence relating the details of a pre-trial identification looks only to the manner in which the identification procedure was conducted. If the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, evidence concerning the particular identification must be suppressed. Zion v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 563, 365 N.E.2d 766; Norris v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 508, 356 N.E.2d 204. This test differs from the one mandated by the United States Constitution. See, Manson v. Brathwaite, (1977) 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140.
Identifications which are subsequent to the unnecessarily suggestive procedure need be excluded only if the original impropriety is likely to result in irreparable misidentification. Norris, supra; Cooper, supra. This test looks to the totality of the circumstances in each case, and it has been referred to as the “independent basis test.” Cooper, supra.
Although defendant has failed to cite any cases which have considered problems akin to voice identification, Chief Justice Givan has stated:
“A ‘confrontation’ as defined by Stovall v. Denno, (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 87 S.Ct. 1967, is an occasion when a witness looks at a suspect or listens to a voice for the purpose of attempting to make an identification.” Smith v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 643, 336 N.E.2d 648. (Emphasis added)
The considerations are the same for the procedures used in a voice identification as they are in visual identifications. Here the defendant is challenging the admission of evidence relating to the voice identification itself, and he does not argue that subsequent identifications must be suppressed due to the taint of the voice identification. The only question is whether or not the procedure employed to make the voice identification was unnecessarily suggestive.
In Parker v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562, this Court stated:
*17“One area that is especially sensitive is the mental state of the witness as he approaches the confrontation. The police should take affirmative action to avoid giving the witness the idea that they have the man involved and what they are seeking is a confirmation from the witness.”
The circumstances of the identification procedure employed here could only suggest to the witness that the defendant was a prime police suspect. The procedure was unnecessarily suggestive because the police could easily have obtained an exemplar of defendant’s voice in which he did not discuss the subject of rape. Furthermore, voice exemplars of more than one individual should have been played to the witness for comparison purposes.
Note. — Reported at 373 N.E.2d 149.