State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela
716 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7, 237 Ariz. 448, 352 P.3d 917 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court may conduct a reliability analysis for an inherently suggestive pretrial identification in the first instance on appeal if the trial court failed to do so, provided the trial court record is sufficiently developed to permit an informed analysis.
Facts:
- Following an emergency call about a man with a gun, Tucson Police Officer Jared Wolfe engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a suspect vehicle.
- The suspects' vehicle stopped, and the occupants, including one man, fled on foot.
- Officer Wolfe followed the man in his patrol car, illuminating him with a spotlight as he jumped over a wall.
- Wolfe observed the suspect's thin build, short stature, and clothing (black long-sleeved shirt, black pants, black and red shoes), but never saw the suspect's face.
- Shortly thereafter, officers presented Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela to Wolfe in a one-person show-up identification procedure.
- Wolfe identified Rojo-Valenzuela based on his build and clothing, stating he was ninety-nine percent certain he was the person who jumped over the wall.
Procedural Posture:
- Rojo-Valenzuela filed a motion in the trial court to suppress Officer Wolfe's pretrial identification.
- The trial court held a 'Dessureault' evidentiary hearing on the motion.
- The trial judge denied the suppression motion, declining to make findings on suggestiveness or reliability because he did not believe it was a 'typical identification' subject to such a motion.
- Rojo-Valenzuela was convicted and appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- On appeal, the State conceded that the show-up procedure was inherently suggestive and that the trial court erred in its reasoning.
- The Court of Appeals, relying on the suppression hearing transcript, conducted its own reliability analysis, found the identification reliable, and affirmed the conviction.
- The Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Rojo-Valenzuela's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May an appellate court make a reliability determination for an inherently suggestive pretrial identification in the first instance when the trial court has erroneously failed to make the required reliability findings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Berch
Yes. An appellate court may make the reliability determination in the first instance if the record is sufficient. The admissibility of identification evidence is a legal determination, not a factual one involving witness credibility. The trial judge acts as a gatekeeper to exclude identification testimony only if it creates a 'very substantial likelihood of misidentification.' The ultimate weight and credibility of the testimony are questions for the jury. Precedent from both the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona courts supports the practice of appellate courts conducting reliability analyses when the record is adequate. Because the trial court held a suppression hearing that developed the facts surrounding the identification, the court of appeals had a sufficient record to apply the totality of the circumstances test and did not err by conducting the reliability analysis itself rather than remanding.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct roles of trial judges, appellate courts, and juries in the context of suggestive eyewitness identifications. By affirming that reliability is a legal question for the court, it allows for greater judicial efficiency; appellate courts can correct a trial court's procedural error without a remand if the record is sufficient. This holding reinforces the judge's gatekeeping function while preserving the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of witness credibility and evidence weight. The case solidifies the procedural approach in Arizona for handling due process challenges to identification evidence when the trial court fails to make the necessary findings.
