Court Opinion

ID: 9629683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:47:18.348572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.535439
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON
dissenting:
I dissent.
The majority relies on six United States Supreme Court cases in deciding whether the voice identification procedure utilized by the Helena police force was so suggestive as to violate defendant’s right to due process. To the extent my colleagues explore these cases, I feel their conclusions have merit. But a fuller picture and a different result emerge when these cases are subjected to closer scrutiny. Because a holding excerpted from the context in which it is developed is often misleading, I will address each case individually. First, however, I will mention two cases not addressed by the majority which, unlike the cases relied on, are based on factual situations nearly identical to the instant case.
Roper v. Beto (5th Cir. 1971), 454 F.2d 499, cert. den. 406 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 2053, 32 L.Ed.2d 336 (1972), involved an aural, rather than visual, identification of a defendant by his victim. There a woman entering her apartment was grabbed from behind by an assailant holding a butcher knife against her throat. He then ordered her to place adhesive tape over her eyes so she would not be able to see him. After tying her to her bed and raping her, the defendant continued to talk to her for about 35 minutes before departing. When the defendant was arrested three days later, the victim was brought to the police station and positioned near the door of the room in which the defendant was being questioned. She identified the voice as that of her attacker.
The court in Roper considered all the cases relied on by the majority in this case with the exception of Mason v. Brathwaite (1977), 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, which had not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. The court stressed that *125“[t]he particular concern of the courts is whether the showup has produced reliable identification evidence or the likelihood of misidentification.” Roper v. Beto, 454 F.2d at 502. The court went on to say, “courts require more than the fact of a one man showup to find a denial of due process in admitting at trial . . . identification testimony based on a pretrial confrontation.” Roper, 454 F.2d at 502. The court looked for additional factors of suggestiveness and found none. As a result, the court found that “if the confrontation itself is not found improper the validity of a resulting voice identification should be left for the jury.” Roper, 454 F.2d at 503. The court concluded that “[under] the totality of the circumstances of this case, the identification procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification.” 454 F.2d at 503.
The second case not mentioned by the majority is State v. Johnson (1976), 138 N.J.Super. 579, 351 A.2d 787. That case, like Roper, involved a factual situation quite similar to the instant case. There a woman was asleep irf bed when she was awakened by a man’s voice and the sensation of his covering her head with a piece of clothing so she could not see him. The man raped her and then talked freely for the thirty minutes he remained in the room. The next day, the victim was asked to come to the police station to see if she could identify the voice of a suspect as the voice of her attacker. Standing near the door of the room in which the defendant was being questioned, without being able to see him, she identified his voice. Using the factors to be weighed in the context of the totality of the circumstances in considering the reliability of an identification as delineated in Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 411, the court concentrated on the degree of reliability of the identification and found it supported by credible evidence. The court went on to note that “[s]uggestibility in itself is not fatal. [Citation omitted.] It is only when that suggestibility in confrontation reaches impermissible or unfair limits that the pendulum swings to a finding of unreliability.” State v. Johnson, 351 A.2d at 790.
*126With the above two cases in mind, I now address each of the six cases relied on by the majority.
The issue in United States v. Wade (1967), 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, the first case in the Wade trilogy, was “.. . whether courtroom identification of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for identification without notice to and in the absence of the accused’s appointed counsel.” Wade, 388 U.S. at 219, 87 S.Ct. at 1928, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1153. The Supreme Court, hinging its opinion on the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, held that the defendant’s conviction for robbery should be vacated pending a hearing to determine whether in-court identification made by witnesses had an independent source, or whether, in any event, the introduction of the evidence was harmless error.
In Gilbert v. California (1967), 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, the Supreme Court found that unless certain in-court identification of the defendant by a number of witnesses in his robbery and murder trial could be found to have an independent source other than a tainted lineup procedure in which .defendant was not afforded counsel, the court would impose a per se exclusionary rule as to such testimony. The court felt this would be the only “effective sanction to assure that law enforcement authorities will respect the accused’s constitutional right to the presence of his counsel at the critical lineup.” (Emphasis added.) Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. at 273, 87 S.Ct. at 1957, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1186.
In Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, the Supreme Court found that a one-on-one identification of defendant by his victim from her hospital bed would not be excluded under the emergency circumstances of that case. The court stated that “a claimed violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it.” Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S.at 302, 87 S.Ct. at 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1206.
Simmons v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 377, 381, 88 S.Ct. *127967, 970, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1252, involved a claim by the defendant “that his pretrial identification by means of photographs was in the circumstances so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to mididentification as to deny him due process of law ...” The Court pointed out that Simmons’ reliance on the rule in Wade and Gilbert, that the manner of an extrajudicial identification affects not just the weight but the admissibility of identification testimony at trial, was misplaced. The Court noted that the rationale in those cases was “that an accused is entitled to counsel at any ‘critical state of the prosecution’ and that a post-indictment lineup is such a ‘critical state.’” Simmons, 390 U.S. at 383, 88 S.Ct. at 970, 19 L.Ed.2d 1252. Since Simmons wás not contending he was entitled to counsel at the time of the identification, the Court evaluated his claim in light of the Stovall rule considering the “totality of surrounding circumstances”. The Court then held that “each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” (Emphasis added.) Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. at 971, 19 L.Ed.2d at 1253. Applying the Stovall standard, the Court denied Simmons’ claim.
The right to counsel at a critical state of prosecution, which the Court has found a lineup to be, is linked to the danger of law enforcement officers presenting a suspect in such a suggestive manner, e.g., with handcuffs, among other dissimilar individuals, or in prison garb, that the manner of presentation influences the witness to the extent that he identifies someone as the perpetrator of a crime, not because he remembers or recognizes him, but because he appears to be the logical choice at the time of the lineup. Presence of counsel at a post-indictment lineup assures that any suggestive procedure utilized could be brought to the jury’s attention through cross-examination.
At this point a reference to the instant case seems appropriate, *128since there is little dispute about what happened at the identification. The rape victim identified defendant by hearing his voice. She did not see him at the time of the identification and in no way could have been prejudiced by his appearance. Defendant, throughout the conversation which the victim listened to, was not asked to repeat' any specific “damning phrases” or any phrase used during the commission of the crime. I admit that the analogy between “earwitness” and “eyewitness” identification is convenient for purposes of legal analysis, but it is not without distinctions with respect to the possibilities for suggestiveness. This becomes increasingly apparent as we examine further the cases cited in the majority opinion.
In Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, the Supreme Court found that a rape victim’s visual identification of her assailant when two detectives walked the defendant past her and had him repeat the words “shut up or I’ll kill you” would not be excluded because of an over suggestive misidentification procedure. In that case the Court applied the standard of “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” to a suggestive “out-of-court identification”. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 198, 93 S.Ct. at 381, 34 L.Ed.2d at 410. It then considered “whether under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive”, Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382, 34 indicators of reliability, “no substantial likelihood of misidentification. The evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury.” 409 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 383, 34 L.Ed.2d at 412. The factors the Court considered were: (l)opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2)the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 383, 34 L.Ed.2d at 411.
Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, involved the identification of a narcotics vendor by *129an undercover police officer. The defendant argued that the identification was unreliable because the officer only examined one photograph which was, he asserted, unnecessary and suggestive. The Court agreed that the procedure in Manson was suggestive, but pointed out that the “per se rule . . . goes too far since its application automatically and peremptorily, without consideration of alleviating factors, keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant.” Manson, 432 U.S. at 112, 97 S.Ct. at 2252, 53 L.Ed.2d at 152. The Court went on to say that “inflexible rules of exclusion, that may frustrate rather then promote justice, have not been viewed recently by this Court-with unlimited enthusiasm.” 432 U.S. at 113, 97 S.Ct. at 2252, 53 L.Ed.2d at 153. The Court then concluded “that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.” 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253, 53 L.Ed.2d at 154.
It appears to me that the majority attempts to apply the per se exclusion, expressly disavowed by the United States Supreme Court, when it ignores the weight of the factors of reliability present in the instant case. I will now turn to the instant case and examine the reliability of the voice identification measured by the criteria outlined in Biggers.
1. Opportunity to view the. criminal at the time of the crime. The commission of the crime in this case lasted approximately thirty minutes during which time defendant spoke almost continuously. He in no way attempted to disguise his voice giving the victim more than an ample opportunity to become familiar with it. There is no question that this factor weighs in favor of reliability.
2. The witness’ degree of attention. That the victim feared for her life when she glimpsed the blade of the knife pressed against her face is unquestioned. For most of the attack, with her eyes covered, she listened closely to every word uttered by her attacker, her senses sharpened by fear. This factor weight heavily in favor of reliability.
5. Length of time between the crime and the confrontation. In this case only thirty-two hours passed between the time of the of*130fense and the identification. The incident and the voice of the defendant were painfully fresh in the memory of the victim, this factor, too, weighs heavily in favor of reliability.
At this point, the factors favoring reliability are well supported by the circumstances of this case and weigh in favor of admitting this testimony, subject to cross-examination as to the circumstances of the identification. The final two factors required further development as my colleagues seem to have difficulty with them.
3. The accuracy of the witness’ prior description. Here the victim described the cloth of defendant’s trousers, his hands, his arms, the smell of gasoline that accompanied him, and his voice. She described his voice in a reasonable manner. There were no peculiar qualities; it was a young man’s voice. That she could not describe a voice as graphically and colorfully as visual perceptions are described does not detract from her reliability. There was nothing inaccurate about her description of the voice, and the fact she was unable to describe the voice more specifically than we ordinarily describe aural perceptions does not weigh against reliability.
4. The witness’ level of certainty. Counsel for appellant overemphasizes the significance of the words used by the victim when she identified the voice of her assailant. Exactly what those words were is a matter of some disagreement, but they were something like “that sounds like the voice”. Subsequently, she testifed under oath that she was certain it was the voice. The majority interprets her words as words of hesitation and finds in that moment of hesitation a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification”. I cannot agree. It is significant to note here, when considering the suggestive nature of the identification procedure, that the officers had mentioned the suspect’s name to the victim prior to her identification of his voice. Though she was not familiar with defendant, she did know someone with a similar name who, she felt, could not have been her attacker. As a result, before she could say “that is the voice”, she had to overcome her initial feeling that this would not be the person who attacked her. Identifying someone as the perpetrator of a violent and vicious crime is not something one does off*131handedly. The victim here acted responsibly and tried to insure her own reliability by not becoming anxious to “pin this on someone”. In this light, her initial hesitation, if in fact we can read it as hesitation, weighs in favor of reliability. Moreover, hesitancy or uncertainty on the part of a witness identifying an accused by voice recognition affects only the weight and not the admissibility of his testimony. State v. Vanella (1910), 40 Mont. 326, 106 P. 364. By the general rule, the weight of voice recognition testimony is a question of fact for the jury’s determination. United States v. Moia (2d Cir. 1958), 251 F.2d 255.
Apart from the one-on-one nature of the confrontation in this case, defendant argues that the police procedures involved were unnecessarily suggestive when the police told the victim they had a “suspect” in custody. This is obviously without merit. Why else would they ask her to come to the police station to listen to a voice? This question was addressed in People v. Harrison (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 9, 14 Ill.Dec. 636, 372 N.E.2d 915. There, the fact that the police told the victim they had a suspect in custody did not establish too suggestive a procedure in that whenever a victim of a crime is asked to come to the police station to look over suspects, there is the unavoidable intimation that the police have someone in custody who might be the-perpetrator of a crime. There was nothing in the record to support the assumption that the witness was influenced by the knowledge that a suspect was in custody. Likewise, there is no evidence in the instant case that this victim was influenced by similar knowledge.
It should be mentioned that Rule 901, Mont.R.Evid., supports the admissibility of this testimony:
“Requirement of Authentication or Identification
“(a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
“(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of *132limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
“(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.”
Finally, I would again emphasize that “it is the danger of misidentification, rather than the mere occasion of suggestion, that constitutes basis for exclusion of the identification evidence.” Baxter v. State, (Fla.App. 1978), 355 S.2d 1234, 1237.
In the final analysis, I would uphold the District Court’s determination that the voice identification evidence with respect to the circumstances surrounding the identification.
With respect to the other issues presented,
I concur in the dissent of Justice Sheehy.