State v. Dessureault
453 P.2d 951, 1969 Ariz. LEXIS 285, 104 Ariz. 380 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An in-court identification is admissible and does not violate due process, even if preceded by an unduly suggestive pretrial identification, as long as the prosecution can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification has an independent source and is not tainted by the illegal pretrial procedure.
Facts:
- On June 20, 1967, at approximately 1:00 a.m., a man with a moustache and a beard robbed a Circle K Market at gunpoint, taking money from the lone employee, Ronald E. Wilkins.
- The next morning, police received information that led them to Robert Gary Dessureault's residence, where he was arrested.
- A search of Dessureault's car and room revealed a loaded gun and the exact amount of money taken from the store.
- At 10:00 a.m. that day, police conducted a lineup in which Dessureault and three other men were presented to Wilkins.
- Dessureault was the only individual in the lineup who had both a moustache and a beard, matching the description of the perpetrator.
- Wilkins identified Dessureault as the robber during this lineup.
- Dessureault did not have an attorney present at the lineup.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Gary Dessureault was charged with robbery in an Arizona state trial court.
- At trial, the robbery victim, Ronald Wilkins, made an in-court identification of Dessureault.
- The defense challenged the in-court identification, arguing it was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial lineup.
- A jury found Dessureault guilty of robbery and he was sentenced to prison.
- Dessureault appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
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 an in-court identification violate a defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment if it is preceded by an unduly suggestive pre-indictment lineup, but the in-court identification is found to have an independent source?
Opinions:
Majority - Struckmeyer, Justice.
No. An in-court identification following an unduly suggestive pretrial lineup does not violate due process if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification stemmed from a source independent of the suggestive lineup. The court found that the pretrial lineup was "palpably" and "unduly suggestive" because Dessureault was the only person who fit the description of the robber. However, the court declined to apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel from Wade and Gilbert to this pre-indictment situation, instead applying the due process "totality of the circumstances" test from Stovall v. Denno. The central inquiry is whether the suggestive procedure was conducive to an "irreparable mistaken identification." The court determined that although the lineup was suggestive, Wilkins' in-court identification had an independent source: his observation of Dessureault for approximately three minutes during the robbery. Wilkins testified he identified Dessureault "by his face" and had a clear view. Therefore, the in-court identification was not tainted by the illegal lineup and was properly admitted.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a specific procedural framework, now widely known as a "Dessureault hearing," for Arizona courts to determine the admissibility of challenged in-court identifications. The decision clarifies that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at lineups does not apply pre-indictment in Arizona, instead adopting the more flexible due process analysis from Stovall. This ruling created a durable precedent by establishing a burden-shifting framework where the prosecution must first prove a pretrial identification was not suggestive, and if it was, must then prove the in-court identification has an independent source. This procedure balances the need to protect defendants from suggestive police tactics with the goal of admitting reliable eyewitness testimony.
