State v. Strickland
113 Ariz. 445, 1976 Ariz. LEXIS 337, 556 P.2d 320 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pretrial identification made under unduly suggestive circumstances, including at a preliminary hearing, violates due process and renders a subsequent in-court identification inadmissible if the totality of the circumstances indicates the identification is unreliable.
Facts:
- On June 9, 1975, Mrs. Merlyn Legge was walking through a bank parking lot carrying a pouch containing cash and checks.
- She observed three young men, walked past them, and was then attacked from behind by one of them, who put an arm around her throat.
- Mrs. Legge fell to the ground, and her assailant grabbed the money pouch and fled.
- On June 13, 1975, Solon Strickland, Jr. was arrested and confessed to the robbery that same day.
- Prior to any court proceedings, Mrs. Legge failed to identify Strickland in both a photographic line-up and a live line-up.
- During the live line-up on June 14, Mrs. Legge identified an individual other than Strickland as her assailant.
Procedural Posture:
- Solon Strickland, Jr. was charged with one count of grand theft in a state trial court.
- A preliminary hearing was held on June 19, 1975, where the victim, Mrs. Legge, identified Strickland for the first time.
- Following the hearing, a police officer informed Mrs. Legge that Strickland had confessed to the crime.
- Prior to trial, the court held a hearing and ruled that Strickland's confession was voluntary and admissible.
- The trial court also held a 'Dessureault hearing' and ruled that the victim's proposed in-court identification was admissible, finding the pretrial identification not unduly suggestive.
- Following a jury trial, Strickland was found guilty and sentenced to three to five years in prison.
- Strickland appealed his conviction 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 a pretrial identification made under suggestive circumstances at a preliminary hearing violate a defendant's due process rights if, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is unreliable?
Opinions:
Majority - Hays, Justice
Yes. A pretrial identification made under suggestive circumstances at a preliminary hearing violates the defendant's due process rights if it is found to be unreliable. The court first established that due process protections against suggestive identifications apply to preliminary hearings, not just police-arranged procedures. The circumstances of the hearing—where Strickland was in a jail T-shirt sitting with his lawyer at the defense table—were inherently suggestive. Applying the five-factor test from Neil v. Biggers, the court found the identification unreliable due to the witness's brief opportunity to view the attacker, her lack of attention before the crime, her repeated failure to identify Strickland in prior non-suggestive lineups, and her identification of another person. The court concluded there was a 'very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,' meaning the suggestive circumstances, not an independent recollection, produced the identification. This tainted the subsequent in-court identification, making it inadmissible.
Analysis:
This decision extends the due process protections against suggestive eyewitness identifications, established in cases like Stovall v. Denno, to identifications made for the first time in a courtroom setting like a preliminary hearing. It reinforces that the 'linchpin' of admissibility is the identification's reliability, assessed through the totality of the circumstances using the Neil v. Biggers factors. The ruling highlights the powerful and potentially corrupting effect of suggestive procedures and subsequent police reinforcement, establishing that even a later in-court identification cannot cure an initial, unreliable one. It provides a strong precedent for challenging in-court identifications that are preceded by suggestive pretrial confrontations of any kind.
