Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Ricky Crain was walking home when he was approached by a black male who talked to him for a couple of minutes, then pulled a knife on him and took his visor, shoes and pager. The next day, Craig Ansel was approached by a black male while waiting for a bus. The man talked to him briefly then pulled a knife on him and took his wallet. Thurman Ross Mayfield was arrested almost immediately, and Ansel identified him as the robber. Two months later, a police officer took photos of six people to Crain’s house, asking if he recognized any of them as the robber. Crain picked out Mayfield’s photo. The trial court denied Mayfield’s motion to suppress Crain’s out-of-court identification. At trial, Crain identified Mayfield as the robber, and Mayfield did not object. Nor did he object when the photographic array was offered. Mayfield was convicted for two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 50 years in prison. On appeal, Mayfield argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the photographic lineup identification. HOLDING:Affirmed. When Mayfield stated, “No objection,” when the photographic array was offered into evidence, he waived the previous objection made at the suppression hearing to such an array. Mayfield did not object at all when Crain identified Mayfield as the robber. The question is whether Mayfield’s waiver of the objection to introduction of the photographic array also effected a waiver of the objection to the in-court identification based on the impermissible suggestiveness of that array. The court finds that it did not. The court rules that while the objection to the introduction of the photographic array itself was waived, the complaint about the taint arising from that array was not. That objection had been properly presented during the suppression hearing and was not affirmatively waived during trial and remained viable. The court says, then, that it will analyze the admissibility of the in-court identification of Mayfield by Crain. To determine the admissibility of an in-court identification, a court must consider whether the out-of-court identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and whether that suggestive procedure gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court summarily finds that the array was impermissibly suggestive, but does not find that the error gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. “The record clearly demonstrates that the in-court identification by Crain was of an independent origin. Crain testified unequivocally that his identification was based on his observations at the time of the offense. He testified he walked and talked with the defendant, in the light of day, for several minutes before being robbed, and he saw the robber’s face clearly. . . . Crain provided a description of the robber and the clothing he was wearing that was consistent with Mayfield’s actual appearance. Crain’s in-court identification occurred approximately nine months after the robbery. Based on the facts recited above, the trial court could reasonably conclude Crain had an adequate opportunity to observe Mayfield and formulate a basis for his in-court identification.” OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.