Neve'rean Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1703-CR-520

On Sept. 26, 2016 Officer Brandon Raftery pursued a fleeing male from a disturbance call; the male climbed and fell over a fence and continued to flee. Raftery attempted to tase him but the device became entangled and did not make contact.
Detective Stacy Henshaw later showed Raftery two six-photo arrays. Raftery declined to identify from the first array because one subject’s head was tilted; from the second array he identified Neve’rean Jackson as the fleeing individual.
The State charged Jackson with resisting law enforcement, domestic battery, and battery resulting in bodily injury; the two battery counts were later dismissed at trial.
At a bench trial Officer Raftery made an in-court identification based on his recollection of the chase; the photo arrays were admitted into evidence over Jackson’s objection.
The trial court found Jackson guilty of resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor) and sentenced him to 180 days with credit for time served. Jackson appealed, arguing the pre-trial photo arrays were unduly suggestive and should have been excluded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of pre-trial photo arrays and related in-court ID	State: admission within trial court discretion; identification evidence admissible	Jackson: arrays were unduly suggestive and likely to produce misidentification	Court: no abuse of discretion admitting the arrays; even if suggestive, Raftery had an independent basis for his in-court ID

Albee v. State, 71 N.E.3d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Williams v. State, 395 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 1979) (identification procedures that are so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification violate due process)
Heiman v. State, 511 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 1987) (factors for assessing independent basis for in-court identification after suggestive pretrial procedure)