State v. Alvarez
145 Ariz. 370, 701 P.2d 1178, 1985 Ariz. LEXIS 219 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pretrial identification procedure, even if potentially suggestive, does not violate a defendant's due process rights if the resulting identification is found to be reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- On January 11, 1984, Deborah Baily was at her rural home with her three-year-old daughter when she noticed a blue Chevrolet Blazer driving by multiple times.
- Upon entering her house, Baily was confronted by an intruder wearing a ski mask who demanded money.
- The intruder forced Baily to drive to her bank so she could cash a check for $1,000.
- During the trip in Baily's truck, the intruder lifted his mask for a few seconds, allowing Baily to observe the left side of his face, which had several small moles.
- Jose Luis Alvarez, the defendant, had access to a distinct two-tone, two-wheel drive blue Chevrolet Blazer through his girlfriend around the time of the crime.
- This vehicle matched the description of the one seen in Baily's neighborhood.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Luis Alvarez was charged in a trial court with armed robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping.
- Before trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress the victim's identification testimony.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Alvarez on all counts.
- The trial court sentenced Alvarez to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
- Alvarez (as appellant) appealed his convictions to the Arizona Supreme 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:
Do pretrial photographic identification procedures violate due process when the defendant's picture is the only one common to two lineups, he is the only person with a distinct facial feature, and he is of a different race than most others in the lineup, if the identification is otherwise reliable?
Opinions:
Majority - Cameron, Justice
No. Potentially suggestive pretrial identification procedures do not violate a defendant's due process rights if the identification is found to be reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The court rejected all three of the defendant's arguments regarding suggestiveness. First, while disapproving of the practice, the court found that having the defendant's photo as the only one common to both lineups was not fatal because the victim was unaware of the duplication and the identification was otherwise reliable. Second, the court held that having a unique physical feature, like facial moles, does not make a lineup unduly suggestive; rather, it can enhance the reliability of the identification. Third, the court determined that the racial composition of the lineup was acceptable because the law only requires that individuals basically resemble one another so the suspect does not stand out, which was satisfied here as the defendant's skin tone and hairstyle were similar to the others. Ultimately, the court applied the 'totality of the circumstances' test from Neil v. Biggers, finding the identification reliable based on the victim's opportunity to view her attacker, her high degree of attention during the crime, and the certainty she demonstrated at the confrontation.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test from Neil v. Biggers as the controlling standard for admitting identification evidence. It clarifies that multiple, potentially suggestive factors in a pretrial identification process do not automatically render an identification inadmissible. The decision emphasizes that strong indicia of reliability, particularly a witness's focused attention during a traumatic event and their level of certainty, can overcome procedural flaws. This holding gives courts significant leeway to admit identifications even when police procedures are less than ideal, placing a heavy burden on defendants to prove not just suggestiveness, but also a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
