People v. Surles
81 Ill. Dec. 493, 126 Ill. App. 3d 216, 466 N.E.2d 1295 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suggestive pre-trial identification procedure does not render subsequent photographic or in-court identifications inadmissible if the state can show by clear and convincing evidence that a reliable, independent origin for the identification exists, separate from the suggestive confrontation.
Facts:
- On June 6, 1980, at approximately 1:30 a.m., the complainant was working alone at Ed's Grill in Forest View.
- Mark Surles and a companion entered the grill, each carrying a sawed-off weapon.
- Surles sat at the counter, announced a robbery, and took approximately $178 from the cash register.
- The grill was well-lit, and the complainant recognized Surles as a customer she had seen and served numerous times over the preceding five years.
- Immediately after the robbery, the complainant called the police and provided a detailed description of Surles.
- A few hours later, Surles was involved in a high-speed car chase with police, which ended in an accident.
- Police recovered two sawed-off weapons from the vehicle Surles was driving, which the complainant later identified as the weapons used in the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Surles (defendant) filed a pre-trial motion in the trial court to suppress the complainant's identification testimony.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress the hospital identification as unnecessarily suggestive but denied the motion as to the subsequent photographic and in-court identifications, finding an independent basis for them.
- Following a jury trial, Surles was convicted of armed robbery and armed violence.
- The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The trial court imposed a general sentence of 20 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
- Surles (appellant) appealed his convictions and sentence to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (an intermediate appellate 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 suggestive pre-trial show-up identification render subsequent photographic and in-court identifications inadmissible when the witness had a significant, pre-existing acquaintance with the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Mejda
No. A suggestive pre-trial identification does not render subsequent identifications inadmissible if the State can show by clear and convincing evidence that a reliable origin of recognition exists for the subsequent identifications independent of the suggestive confrontation. The court applied the six-factor test from People v. McTush to determine the reliability of the independent origin. It found that: (1) the complainant had a clear opportunity to view Surles in the well-lit grill; (2) her attention was directed at Surles, who held a weapon on her; (3) her prior description was accurate and detailed; (4) she never hesitated in her identification; (5) only one day passed between the crime and the photo identification; and (6) most importantly, she had been acquainted with Surles as a customer for approximately five years. This prior acquaintance established a strong, uninfluenced, and independent basis for both the photographic and in-court identifications, purging them of any taint from the suppressed hospital show-up.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the "independent origin" doctrine, which serves as a critical exception to the exclusion of identifications that follow suggestive police procedures. The decision emphasizes that the ultimate question is reliability, not the flawlessness of police conduct. It highlights that a strong pre-existing familiarity between a witness and a defendant is a powerful factor in establishing an independent basis for identification. This precedent provides a clear framework for lower courts to admit otherwise tainted eyewitness testimony, so long as the McTush factors, particularly prior acquaintance, strongly indicate the identification's reliability.
