State v. Styles
962 So. 2d 1031, 2007 WL 2254902 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A photographic array is not considered unnecessarily suggestive merely because the suspect's photograph differs from others in clothing, background color, or pose. An out-of-court identification should only be suppressed if the court first finds the police procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, and second, that the suggestive procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
Facts:
- A victim was assaulted after consuming eight alcoholic drinks.
- During the incident, the victim purposely avoided looking at his assailants.
- Police detectives later presented the victim with a six-person photographic array for identification.
- In the array, the defendant, Lionel Anthony Styles, was pictured wearing a yellow shirt.
- Other individuals in the array wore shirts of different colors, including black, blue-green, and bright blue.
- The victim identified Styles from the array and stated he was "unequivocal" in his identification.
- The victim testified that Styles' picture "popped out" because he recognized him, not because of his shirt.
Procedural Posture:
- Lionel Anthony Styles was charged with a criminal offense.
- In the trial court, Styles filed a motion to suppress the out-of-court photographic identification made by the victim.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
- After the hearing, the trial court granted Styles' motion and issued an order suppressing the out-of-court identification.
- The State of Florida, as the petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, to review the trial court's suppression order.
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 photographic array become unnecessarily suggestive, thereby requiring suppression, when the defendant is depicted wearing a brightly colored shirt that distinguishes him from other individuals in the array?
Opinions:
Majority - Cortiñas, J.
No. A photographic array is not rendered unnecessarily suggestive simply because of differences in the clothing worn by the individuals depicted. The court applied the two-part test from Grant v. State, which requires a court to first determine if the police procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. Only if the procedure is found to be suggestive does the court move to the second step to assess whether it created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification under the totality of the circumstances. Here, the trial court erred by conflating the two steps and improperly considering reliability factors before first establishing that the procedure itself was suggestive. Citing precedent, the court held that differences in clothing, background, and pose in a photographic array do not, by themselves, make the array suggestive. The evidence showed the victim was not influenced by the defendant's yellow shirt, and even a police statement that a suspect is in the lineup is not, on its own, impermissibly suggestive.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the procedural strictness of the two-part test for suppressing out-of-court identifications. It clarifies that trial courts must conduct the 'suggestiveness' inquiry as a distinct, threshold question before ever considering the 'reliability' of the identification. By setting a high bar for what constitutes an 'unnecessarily suggestive' procedure, the decision makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge identifications based on minor photographic inconsistencies. This strengthens the prosecution's ability to use out-of-court identifications, as long as police conduct does not overtly single out a particular suspect.
