State v. Dickson
322 Conn. 410, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 236, 141 A.3d 810 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An in-court eyewitness identification that is not preceded by a successful identification in a non-suggestive, out-of-court identification procedure is inherently suggestive and violates due process principles, requiring it to be prescreened for admissibility by the trial court.
Facts:
- On January 9, 2010, Akeem Lyles arranged to meet Albert Weibel and Matthew Shaw, ostensibly to sell them an all-terrain vehicle.
- Lyles, along with Jovanni Reyes and Andrew Dickson, armed themselves with guns and conspired to rob Weibel and Shaw at the meeting point.
- During the robbery, Lyles and Reyes demanded money from Weibel and robbed Shaw.
- After Lyles and Reyes fled, Dickson held a gun to Weibel's head, threw him against a dumpster, and shot him in the leg and neck.
- Approximately one year after the shooting, Weibel viewed a police photographic array that included a photograph of Dickson but was unable to identify him as his assailant.
- Both Weibel and Shaw, however, successfully identified Lyles from a photographic array as one of the robbers.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Dickson was charged with assault in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in a Connecticut trial court.
- Before trial, Dickson's counsel filed a motion to preclude the victim, Albert Weibel, from making an in-court identification, arguing it would be unnecessarily suggestive.
- The trial court denied the motion, following the existing precedent of State v. Smith.
- At trial, Weibel identified Dickson in court as his assailant.
- A jury found Dickson guilty on both counts, and the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction.
- Dickson, as appellant, appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which affirmed the conviction, also relying on State v. Smith.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted Dickson's petition for certification to appeal.
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 first time in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness, not preceded by a successful identification in a non-suggestive out-of-court procedure, violate the defendant's due process rights because it is inherently suggestive?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers, C.J.
Yes. A first time in-court identification not preceded by a successful, non-suggestive out-of-court identification violates due process principles because it is inherently suggestive. Overruling its precedent in State v. Smith, the court found that confronting a witness with a defendant who is clearly identified as the accused is one of the most suggestive identification procedures possible. This procedure amounts to a form of improper vouching by the state, poses a significant risk of misidentification, and is the result of state action by the prosecutor. The court reasoned that since unduly suggestive pretrial police procedures trigger due process protections, the same should be true for suggestive procedures conducted by a prosecutor in court. The court concluded that such identifications must be prescreened for admissibility. However, in this specific case, the court found the admission of the identification was harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, particularly the testimony of a coconspirator.
Concurring - Zarella, J.
No. First time in-court identifications are constitutionally permissible and do not violate the Due Process Clause. While agreeing with the judgment to affirm the conviction due to harmless error, this opinion disagrees with the creation of a new prophylactic constitutional rule, arguing that a state court lacks the authority to create such a rule under the federal constitution. The concurrence maintains that traditional adversarial safeguards—such as cross-examination, jury instructions, closing arguments, and the government's burden of proof—are sufficient to protect a defendant's due process rights. It posits that the reliability of evidence is a matter for the jury to decide and should only be excluded when it is so extremely unfair as to violate fundamental justice, which is not the case with standard in-court identifications.
Concurring - Espinosa, J.
No. First time in-court identifications do not violate due process. This opinion joins Justice Zarella's concurrence and adds that the majority's decision is an act of judicial activism that micromanages trial courts and exceeds the court's authority. The detailed, flowchart-like rule created by the majority is seen as an unwieldy substitute for the trial court's sound discretion in managing proceedings. The opinion argues that the traditional protections of the adversary system are the proper safeguards against suggestive identifications and that the majority's decision is part of a troubling pattern of the court overstepping its constitutional role.
Concurring - Robinson, J.
The Court should not have reached the constitutional issue. This opinion concurs only in the judgment affirming the conviction and the majority's harmless error analysis. It argues that the court violated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance by deciding a complex and controversial constitutional question when the case could have been resolved on the non-constitutional ground of harmless error. Because the state won the appeal, the majority's new federal constitutional rule is effectively unreviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is an undesirable outcome for such a significant legal pronouncement.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Connecticut's law on eyewitness identification, overturning 30 years of precedent from State v. Smith. By recognizing the inherent suggestiveness of first time in-court identifications and requiring judicial prescreening, the court aligns with a more modern understanding of the potential for misidentification. This new rule effectively compels prosecutors to use non-suggestive, out-of-court identification procedures early in an investigation, as failing to secure a successful prior identification may lead to the exclusion of crucial testimony at trial. The decision will fundamentally alter trial strategy in cases where identity is a central issue, placing a greater burden on the state to develop identification evidence before the trial begins.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Dickson