Court Opinion

ID: 9741076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:10.407495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.181074
License: Public Domain

Quinn, P. J.
(dissenting in part). The majority opinion sustains the finding of the trial judge that the in-court identification of defendant by witness Karen Smith was on an independent basis. That opinion holds that United States v Wade, 388 US 218; 87 S Ct 1926; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), and People v Franklin Anderson, 389 Mich 155; 205 NW2d 461 (1973), applied to this record, indicate no reversible error occurred by admitting the testimony of witness Smith regarding her prior photographic identification of defendant. This should end our inquiry and we should affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress the identification testimony of witness Smith.
However, the majority opinion proceeds through four more pages to discuss "had the investigation focused on defendant” at the time of the photographic identification by Karen Smith. There being no proof on this issue, since it was not raised at trial, the majority remands for an evidentiary hearing on this point. The majority opinion further holds that if the trial judge finds that the investigation had focused on defendant at the time of the photographic identification by Karen Smith, the trial judge is to order a new trial. This last holding is based on what I consider faulty reasoning which lacks record support.
The reasoning is that the state police started the investigation and they should be responsible for the protection of defendant’s rights with respect to photographic identification once they knew he was in custody. I can accept this reasoning as a general *55statement of policy. I cannot apply it to this record which discloses that the state police were conducting a general investigation of a series of robberies and which fails to disclose that the state police knew defendant was in custody at the time they delivered the photographs to Officer Curtis. If this reasoning is to be accepted, it should be limited to situations where the police agency with knowledge of defendant being in custody withholds that information from the officer displaying the photos for identification.
Except for the conclusion of the majority opinion, I concur in the balance of it and vote to affirm.