Oregon Supreme Court November 29, 2012
by: Stephanie Clark and Abassos • November 29, 2012 • no comments
The admissibility of eyewitness identifications is determined by reliability and grounded in the evidence code.
When a defendant moves to exclude an eyewitness identification, the state bears the burden of proving the ID is reliable. The state must do so by establishing the facts necessary for admissibility under the evidence code-i.e. that the eyewitness has personal knowledge of the matters to which he or she will testify and the identification was rationally based on the witness's first-hand impressions and will be helpful to the jury. If the state meets its burden, the defense must show that the probative value of the ID is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. This rule is a revision to the State v. Classen test for admissibility, which required a trial court to first determine whether an identification was made under suggestive circumstances before deciding whether it was independently reliable. Two cases consolidated for the opinion were decided under the new rule today.
In State v. Lawson, Mrs. Hilde identified the defendant as her attacker. However, she only saw the person's profile for a few seconds because he placed a pillow over her face. When questioned initially at the hospital she told police that she could not identify her attacker and she was unable to pick him from a photographic lineup. It was only after Mrs. Hilde first saw the defendant in a newspaper photo that said he was the suspect and then at a preliminary hearing, that she was able to positively ID him. The Court held that the lack of personal observation raised serious concerns that the ID was reliable and not a product of suggestive circumstances. Remanded for retrial.
State v. James on the other hand passes the new test. Two men robbed Safeway, one blocking the exit and fighting off the managers while the other ran away with the booze. The report to police included great detail of the suspects:"a fairly large guy; Indian male six feet to six feet two inches, 220 pounds, wearing baggy blue jeans, white tank top tee shirt"; and a "small Indian male approximately five feet tall, 110 pounds, wearing a black coat with a hood and baggy blue plants, carrying a black back pack." Five hours later a police officer picked up two males matching the description, drove them to Safeway, and the managers identified them as the robbers. The Court held that the ID was based on personal knowledge and up-close personal observation. Although the police just showing up with defendants may have been suggestive, the detailed description provided sufficient evidence that the identification was based on the witnesses' original observation. State v. Lawson/James, __ Or __ (2012).
Scientific Evidence > Physical Abuse Diagnosis That Identifies the Perpetrator
A physician's conclusion that the defendant caused a child physical injuries did not meet the requirements for admissibility as scientific evidence because it did not have sufficient indicia of scientific validity to be helpful to the jury under OEC 702. Here, in a prosecution for child abuse, the trial court admitted the expert testimony of, and a written report by, a CARES physician. The expert diagnosed the child, C, as a victim of child abuse and concluded that "[C] was physically abused by [defendant]." The expert's conclusion was inadmissible as scientific evidence because her testimony did not sufficiently describe the techniques that she had used to identify the perpetrator. To the extent she did describe her techniques, her testimony also failed to demonstrate that those techniques were generally accepted, consistent with recognized safeguards to increase diagnostic accuracy, or supported by literature in the field. State v. Sanchez-Alfonso, __ Or __ (2012).
