Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606

On Oct. 15, 2011 Nathaniel Harley was robbed at gunpoint; shortly after he entered a police cruiser and saw a photograph of Jaynes on the cruiser computer and immediately said it was his assailant.
The photograph had been on the cruiser inadvertently from an unrelated police matter; Officer Kostick stated it was not displayed intentionally for identification.
Detective Mullen thereafter conducted an eight-photo array that included Jaynes; Harley immediately identified Jaynes from that array and said he was "100 percent" sure and recognized Jaynes from the neighborhood.
Jaynes was tried twice (first trial ended in partial hung jury); after retrial a jury convicted Jaynes of robbery, PIC, and person not to possess a firearm; aggregate sentence 17–35 years.
Jaynes appealed, arguing: (1) trial court erred by denying suppression of in- and out-of-court identifications as tainted by a suggestive single-photo display; (2) trial court improperly curtailed cross-examination about photo-array protocols; and (3) prosecutor’s closing argument warranted mistrial for asking jurors to "put themselves in the victim’s shoes."
The Superior Court affirmed: it found the initial photo display was accidental (not improper police conduct) and Harley’s identification reliable; cross-examination claim was waived for failure to object; prosecutor’s comment, viewed in context, did not amount to reversible misconduct.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Suppression of in-/out-of-court IDs	Single-photo on cruiser was unduly suggestive and tainted later array and in-court ID	Photo shown accidentally; subsequent array and in-court ID reliable and independent	Denied — no improper police conduct; identification reliable under totality of circumstances
Comment by officer about prior "run-in"	Officer Kostick’s remark further tainted identification	Harley knew Jaynes from neighborhood; remark did not create substantial likelihood of misidentification	Denied — no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification
Limitation on cross-examination of Detective Mullen	Court improperly interrupted and limited questioning about police photo-array protocols	Defense failed to object at trial; issue waived on appeal	Waived — no relief due to lack of timely objection
Prosecutor’s closing argument ("put yourselves in the victim’s shoes")	Comment appealed to jury sympathy and warranted mistrial	Comment explained victim’s fear and threats and was responsive to defense; not outcome-determinative	Denied — remark, read in context, did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or deprive defendant of fair trial

Commonwealth v. Lark, 91 A.3d 165 (Pa. Super. 2014) (suggestiveness alone does not require exclusion; require substantial likelihood of misidentification)
Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (identification admissibility judged under totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2012) (suppression aimed to prevent improper police conduct; absent such conduct, suppression not warranted)
Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391 (Pa. 2009) (lineup identification not suggestive despite post-selection detective comment)
Commonwealth v. Pearson, 685 A.2d 551 (Pa. Super. 1996) (failure to object at trial waives issue on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Rose, 960 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2008) (objection plus request for mistrial preserves appellate review even if made at close of prosecutor’s argument)
Commonwealth v. Lettau, 955 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for mistrial: whether prejudicial event deprived defendant of fair trial and whether trial court abused discretion)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (prosecutor afforded reasonable latitude; misconduct requires unavoidable prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 595 A.2d 28 (Pa. 1991) (not every improper remark warrants new trial)
Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2006) (prosecutor may use oratorical flair and reasonable inferences supported by evidence)