Court Opinion

ID: 9544586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:57:19.5778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:14.629409
License: Public Domain

*612Ringold, J.
(concurring in the result)—I read the majority opinion to hold that the violation of the rule in State v. Thorkelson, 25 Wn. App. 615, 611 P.2d 1278 (1980), here was harmless in light of the strong indicia of reliable identifications. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 53 L. Ed. 2d 140, 97 S. Ct. 2243 (1977); State v. Hilliard, 89 Wn.2d 430, 573 P.2d 22 (1977).
The rule in Thorkelson is a salutary one that reduces the risk of misidentification. The majority's purported modification of Thorkelson is dicta unnecessary to the decision. The law in this jurisdiction remains that absent extenuating circumstances, a photographic identification procedure should not be used when the defendant is in custody. A violation of this rule requires balancing the inherently cor-ruptive effect of the photo montage and any other suggestiveness against the countervailing indicia of reliability. Manson v. Brathwaite, supra; State v. Hilliard, supra. Even if the evidence of the photo montage procedure and identification should have been suppressed, I find sufficient indicia of reliability to concur in the conclusion that the in-court identifications were admissible at trial. Any error in the admission of the photo montage identification was harmless.