POLICE / PROSECUTOR UPDATE - FEBRUARY 1998
Show-Up Identification
In last month's issue we examined a case dealing with a pretrial lineup
identification. The Court of Appeals recently decided a case involving
another identification procedure - the one-on-one confrontation or
"show-up."
The facts of the case reveal that around midnight A.L. was the sole
employee working in a convenience store. She watched a man drive up and
put air in his tires. The area was illuminated by bright lights, and
A.L. had an unobstructed view. The man entered the store, pulled a gun
and robbed A.L. They were face-to-face for one to two minutes, and were
about two feet apart. After the man was given the money, he ordered A.L.
to leave the store and run. She ran to a nearby house, called the
police, and gave them a description. The defendant's car was stopped,
and he was arrested about 15 minutes later. A.L. was then told a suspect
had been apprehended (it would be better not to tell a witness this) and
that she should go to the jail. While in the jail lobby at 2:00 a.m.,
she observed the defendant being walked across the lobby by an officer.
She indicated that he was the man who robbed her. A lineup was not
conducted because no other jail inmates were close to the defendant's
age.
As the law has developed, the admissibility of show-up identification
evidence turns on an evaluation of whether, under the totality of the
circumstances, the show-up was conducted in such a manner as to lead the
witness to make a mistaken identification. The Indiana Supreme Court has
identified several factors to be considered in determining whether a
particular show-up is likely to lead to a mistaken identification. They
include: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the
time of the crime; (2) the length of the initial observation of the
criminal; (3) the lighting conditions; (4) the distance between the
witness and the criminal; (5) the witness' degree of attention; (6) the
accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal; (7) the
level of certainty demonstrated by the witness; and (8) any
identifications of another person. Also, a show-up will be viewed more
favorably the closer in time it occurs to the commission of the crime.
Finally, a show-up is not as offensive where a photo or corporeal lineup
is not possible.
Based upon the law, the show-up in this case was proper. A.L. had a
significant opportunity to observe the man who robbed the store. She had
an unobstructed, well-lit view of him outside the store. She then
observed him face-to-face at a distance of two feet for at least a
minute. The actual show-up occurred 2 1/4 hours after the robbery, which
was close enough in time that the image of the robber was likely to be
fresh in the witness' memory. Further, when A.L. first called the
police, she described the robber as white, about sixty years old and
overweight, with glasses and balding gray hair. He was about 5'7" tall.
The defendant was a 61-year-old white man, 5'7" tall. He weighed 190
pounds and had gray hair and wore glasses. Finally, it was significant
that police testified that a proper lineup could not be conducted at the
time because there were no inmates in the jail who were the defendant's
age.
Two points to remember. If possible, a photo array or lineup should
preferably be used. And a show-up should be conducted as close in time
to the commission of the crime as possible, certainly within a very few
hours.
Mitchell v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. App. 01/26/98).
This is a publication of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, covering
various topics of interest to law enforcement officers. It is directed
solely toward issues of evidence, criminal law and procedure. Please
consult your city, town, or county attorney for legal advice relating to
civil liability. Please direct any suggestions you may have for future
issues to Steve Stewart at 285-6264.