Court Opinion

ID: 9661168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:31:24.407305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.986681
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(dissenting). The Court has remanded this case for an evidentiary hearing concerning an eyewitness identification of the defendant. I see no need to remand. There is nothing in this case suggesting that the procedures by which defendant was identified were impermissibly suggestive. I would affirm.
In People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323, 357; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), and People v [James] Anderson, 391 Mich 419, 424; 216 NW2d 780 (1974), I urged the Court to adopt recent United States Supreme Court opinions concerning identification procedures. It was thought those opinions "would promote efficient criminal investigation while preserving the rights of all citizens”. As in Jackson and Anderson, the present opinion does not as effectively serve those ends.
The trial in United States v Ash, 413 US 300; 93 S Ct 2568; 37 L Ed 2d 619 (1973), occurred three years after the crime. The prosecutor "decided to use a photographic display to determine whether the witnesses he planned to call would be able to make in-court identifications”. During trial, there was "a hearing on the suggestive nature” of the display. The trial judge said the prosecutor had shown that "in-court identifications would be 'based on observation of the suspect other than the intervening observation’ ”.
*102The Supreme Court held "that the Sixth Amendment does not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by the Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender”. The Court said the "adversary mechanism” would expose any weakness in the procedures. Defendant could urge the trial court "to examine this photographic display under the due process standard enunciated in Simmons v United States, 390 US [377], at 384 [88 S Ct 967; 19 L Ed 2d 1247 (1968)].”
In Simmons, the Court was "unwilling to prohibit” the use of photographic identification "either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement”. The Court held "that each case must be considered on its own facts”. To reverse a conviction, defendant must show that the "photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification”.
That was the standard which Mr. Kachar’s attorney used to challenge the photographic identification in our case. About two weeks before trial, a Mr. Gorowski offered himself as a witness. Before trial, he was shown 30 photographs and selected three of defendant. He also identified defendant at trial.
When Mr. Gorowski began to testify about the photographs, defendant’s counsel had the jury excused and then examined Gorowski about the procedure. He said it "is important for the court to know, because if [the procedure] was so impermissibly suggestive to give likelihood — a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, then it is out in its entirety”.
The examination and sparring between counsel *103take up 20 pages of transcript. The trial judge understood the Simmons test and allowed Mr. Kachar’s counsel an opportunity to explain why the procedure was wrong. However, the trial judge "[didn’t] find that this identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to taint this witness’s identification of the defendant”.
The Court of Appeals said "the instant record clearly supports the trial court’s determination of the Simmons issue”. However, the Court felt People v [Franklin] Anderson, 389 Mich 155; 205 NW2d 461 (1973), required it to determine if "Gorowski’s in-court identification of defendant [had] a basis independent of the prior improper show-up?” It concluded "that such an independent basis did exist and that Gorowski’s in-court identification of defendant was therefore not tainted by the defective show-up”.
I have indicated my opinion about Anderson. See People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323; 217 NW2d 22 (1974). I do not believe it requires retroactive application. Anderson was decided March 27, 1973. Mr. Kachar’s trial occurred in March, 1972.
Two of the men who stole the guns testified that Mr. Kachar purchased them. They were subject to cross-examination. Mr. Gorowski’s testimony was also thoroughly cross-examined. Mr. Kachar’s attorney employed the Simmons test. He had an opportunity to attack the photographic identification procedures. He could not convince the court that they were impermissibly suggestive.
I would affirm the conviction.