Com. v. Caple, A.
Com. v. Caple, A. No. 2630 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- On May 19, 2011, at about midnight Millard Goldsmith was robbed at gunpoint near Market and Conestoga Streets in Philadelphia; he testified he observed the perpetrators’ faces for several minutes under El-train lighting.
- The victim reported the robbery to police; officers and a K-9 located and apprehended Anthony J. Caple in an alley about an hour later.
- At the scene an officer held Caple, shone a spotlight on him, and asked the victim, “Is that the guy?” The victim identified Caple and later made a second positive identification from a police vehicle.
- Caple was tried, convicted of robbery, criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of a crime, sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus probation; post-trial motions denied.
- Caple appealed the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the out-of-court identification, arguing the confrontation was unduly suggestive and the in-court ID lacked an independent basis.
- The Superior Court reviewed the suppression hearing record, applied the totality-of-circumstances reliability test, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the out-of-court identification was unduly suggestive and hence suppressible | Caple: the one-on-one, spotlighted display with police surrounding Caple and statements like “They had got the guy” produced a substantial likelihood of misidentification | Commonwealth: identification was prompt, near the scene, victim had good opportunity to observe, identified unhesitatingly and was certain | Identification procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability/totality-of-circumstances test for identification admissibility)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (pre-trial identification suppressed only if procedure was impermissibly suggestive with very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification)
- Commonwealth v. Ransome, 402 A.2d 1379 (Pa. 1979) (suggestiveness alone does not require exclusion; focus on likelihood of misidentification)
- Commonwealth v. Palagonia, 868 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 429 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Super. 1981) (prompt identification near scene and unhesitating IDs can overcome suggestive circumstances)