Hicks v. State
554 P.2d 1153 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pretrial photographic identification procedure does not violate a defendant's due process rights unless, based on the totality of the circumstances, the procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Facts:
- On October 18, 1974, a nine-year-old girl, Jane Doe, was sent to a neighborhood grocery store in the evening.
- On her way to the store, a man in a green and white car with distinctive 'opera windows' and a piece of cardboard in the rear window spoke to her.
- After she left the store, the same man approached her on foot, wearing black square-frame glasses.
- The man offered Jane Doe money to help him find his lost keys.
- When she tried to take her groceries home first, the man put his hand over her mouth, threatened to kill her, and pulled her next to a parked boat.
- The man pulled down her pants and his own and attempted to penetrate her.
- The assault was interrupted when a car horn sounded and two boys were seen approaching, causing the assailant to flee.
- Terry Buchanan maintained an alibi, with witnesses stating he was at a car dealership until shortly after 8:00 p.m. and arrived home around 8:30 p.m. that evening.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Buchanan was charged with lewd and lascivious acts toward a child.
- The prosecution informed the district court it would not present evidence at a scheduled preliminary hearing, instead opting to present the case to a grand jury.
- The district court dismissed the complaint against Buchanan due to the state's failure to present evidence.
- On the same day, a grand jury returned an indictment against Buchanan for the same offense.
- Buchanan filed a motion in the superior court (trial court) for a post-indictment preliminary hearing, which the court denied.
- Following a jury trial in the superior court, Buchanan was found guilty.
- Buchanan appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Alaska, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pretrial photographic lineup violate a defendant's due process rights when it contains some suggestive elements but includes multiple individuals who match the witness's general description?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Justice
No. A pretrial photographic lineup does not violate due process if it is not so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court evaluated the identification procedure under the totality of the circumstances test established in Simmons v. United States. Although the officer's instruction to the child witness to 'see if you can find the person that attacked you' could be seen as suggestive, it was not so impermissibly suggestive as to be constitutionally defective. Crucially, the court found that as many as three of the six photographs used in the lineup matched the victim’s general description of a light-skinned Black male with short hair. This distinguished the case from others where only the defendant's picture matched the description. Therefore, the procedure was not so suggestive as to create a 'very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,' and its admission did not violate Buchanan's due process rights.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high threshold required to find that an identification procedure violates due process. It affirms that the 'totality of the circumstances' is the controlling standard, meaning that minor suggestive elements will not invalidate an identification if other factors ensure its reliability. The decision emphasizes that having multiple individuals in a photo array who match the witness's general description is a key factor weighing against a finding of impermissible suggestiveness. The opinion is also significant for its willingness to separate the issue of prosecutorial misconduct from the admissibility of evidence; the court condemned the prosecutor's actions and remanded for potential sanctions while still affirming the conviction, indicating that even serious misconduct may not lead to a new trial if the jury was made aware of it and could factor it into their credibility determinations.
Unlock the full brief for Hicks v. State