Court Opinion

ID: 9661916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:54:38.120199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.101553
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J.
(dissenting). Defendant’s second allegation of error is that the complainant’s in-court identification of him was based on an unnecessarily suggestive prior identification. He argues that presentation of him to the complaining witness at the preliminary examination as the one accused by the police was unduly suggestive. He also contends that the police told the complaining witness before the preliminary examination that they had the right man. He contends that admission of the in-court identification violated his due process rights.1
*217Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 301-302; 87 S Ct 1967, 1972; 18 L Ed 2d 1199, 1206 (1967), recognized the possibility of a due-process violation in a suggestive confrontation, aside from a right to counsel.
"We turn now to the question whether petitioner, although not entitled to the application of Wade and Gilbert to his case, is entitled to relief on his claim that in any event the confrontation conducted in this case was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process of law. This is a recognized ground of attack upon a conviction independent of any right to counsel claim. Palmer v Peyton, 359 F2d 199 (CA 4th Cir 1966).”
1 hold that the preliminary examination is a pretrial confrontation within the meaning of Stovall. Mason v United States, 134 US App DC 280; 414 F2d 1176 (1969). I agree with United States ex rel Ragazzini v Brierly, 321 F Supp 440, 443 (WD Pa, 1970), which said:
"The preliminary hearing is particularly fraught with the dangers of suggestibility, intentional or otherwise, for it is in this setting that an accused is frequently presented to the victim or witness as one whom the State suspects as being guilty of an offense and, as here, guilty of the very offense to which the victim has been subjected or which the witness has observed. See Mason v United States, supra, and United States v Terry, supra. ”2
In the case at bar, before the complainant made may identification at trial, the defense attorney moved for a separate hearing to determine if an in-court identification was tainted by the prior *218confrontation. The defense argued that the prior confrontation had been suggestive because of police comment. The defense did not argue the suggestibility of the preliminary examination itself as a one-on-one confrontation. The court denied the motion saying that anything the police officer might have said to the witness went only to the credibility of the identification and not to its admissibility.
I hold that the trial court erred in not holding a separate hearing at this point. The defense challenged the identification evidence alleging police suggestion. The court was aware at this point that the identification at the preliminary examination had been the only identification of defendant by the complainant. The court was also aware that the confrontation was 2-1/2 years after the robbery. This was sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the constitutional issue of the admissibility of this in-court identification. People v Maybee, 40 Mich App 397 (1972). See also Ragazzini, supra.
I hold that due process requires the court on a remand to review the total circumstances of the prior identification to determine if the in-court identification was admissible. The claim that the preliminary examination was itself a prejudicial confrontation because it amounted to a one-on-one confrontation, first raised in the motion for a directed verdict and later on appeal, is therefore a question to be resolved on remand.
The standard of review in this case is set out clearly in Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188; 93 S Ct 375; 34 L Ed 2d 401 (1972), as the "totality of the circumstances” test to determine the "likelihood of misidentification” which would violate due process. The court must consider all relevant facts concern*219ing the preliminary examination identification to determine if it violated due process. In Neil the court lists some of the relevant factors — the ones particularly applicable to that case. As in Neil, the time between the robbery and the confrontation is very important. I would note that here it was 2-1/2 years while in Neil it was only seven months. Also the complainant in Neil was with the defendant much longer than the complainant was with the assailant in this case. Relevant too is whether the police did tell the witness that they had the right person in custody. This might have made the confrontation so suggestive as to have precluded a reliable identification. Also relevant is the witness’s failure to give any identifying characteristics on cross-examination. He remembered nothing specific about the robbers at the time of trial, except that they were wearing dark clothing.
Finally I note that this was not an ordinary open-court preliminary examination. The complainant himself described the confrontation as follows:
”Q. Did anyone tell you to come down because they had the man that robbed you?
”A. They told me that they had the man that robbed me when they called me. When they sent me the subpoena they didn’t tell me anything but afterwards they called and told me to be sure and to come down on downtown to identify this man.
”Q. O.K. Then you came down and you sat in the courtroom, is that right?
"A. Yes.
"Q. As a matter of fact, you went back in the judge’s chambers, didn’t you?
”A. Yes.
”Q. And when you went back there, the people that were there were yourself and Mr. Solomon and Mr. *220Solomon’s lawyer and a lady from the prosecutor’s office and the judge and the court reporter; right?
"A. Yes.
”Q. And there was no one else there to identify other than Mr. Solomon, is that correct?
"A. Yeah. There was nobody else there.
”Q. So he was the only one anybody picked out?
"A. Yeah. He was the onliest one.
”Q. All right. Now from the date that this robbery occurred, July 3, 1968, to the date of that preliminary hearing, which was February 19, 1971, had you ever seen Mr. Solomon?
"A. No.
"Q. So two and a half years elapsed, a little more than two and a half years, is that correct?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And you had seen Mr. Solomon for what you say may have been less than ten minutes on July 3 — that’s your testimony, isn’t it?
"A. Yes.
”Q. And you had — you were never shown a lineup, were you?
"A. No.”
The trial court would have the power to totally exclude this identification if it found that the pretrial confrontation violated due process and that the in-court identification had no independent basis — independent of the preliminary examination identification.
Since the primary issue at this trial was the identification of defendant, the identification by the complaining witness was crucial. Two other witnesses identified the defendant; but both had only seen the robbers’ faces as they ran from the scene, at a considerable distance and for only a few seconds. They first saw defendant in the courtroom three years after the robbery. Neither of the other witnesses could give any specific facial char*221acteristics of the escaped robber, except that he was dark skinned. Additionally, one of the witnesses was substantially impeached on cross-examination. The record does not explain how an arrest warrant naming defendant could have issued the day after the robbery. None of the prosecution witnesses knew defendant’s name at that time. Therefore, if the trial court should determine that the in-court identification by the complaining witness was inadmissible, this would constitute reversible error.
I would remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 I do not reach the defendant’s argument that he had a right to a lineup in this case.

 Mason v United States, 134 US App DC 280, 284; 414 F2d 1176, 1180 (1969); United States v Terry, 137 US App DC 267; 422 F2d 704 (1970).