People v. Moore, 45 N.E.3d 696

On Nov. 17, 2012 Marshawn Earvin was robbed at gunpoint near 91st and Princeton; he saw the robber about three feet away, was struck, and later reported the crime.
Earvin identified Karl Moore in open court and, eight days after the robbery, identified Moore and a second man in a seven-person police lineup; Earvin signed a pre-lineup advisory form.
Police arrested Moore (and several others) after locating a vehicle at an address Earvin had provided; Moore wore a diamond-studded earring matching Earvin’s description and an earring taken from Earvin was recovered.
Moore moved to suppress the lineup identification as impermissibly suggestive (claiming multiple suspects and too few fillers) and to exclude unreliable identification evidence; the motion was denied after a combined suppression/hearing and bench trial.
The trial court found Moore guilty of armed robbery with a firearm and sentenced him to 22 years (7 years + 15-year firearm enhancement) and ordered a $150 public defender reimbursement fee.
On appeal, Moore challenged (1) the admissibility/reliability of the identification and (2) the imposition of the $150 public defender fee without a statutory hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive and identification unreliable	The State argued the lineup was proper, contained sufficient fillers, and Earvin’s ID was reliable under the Biggers factors	Moore argued the lineup was unduly suggestive (multiple suspects, only two fillers) and ID unreliable given lighting, brief exposure, distraction by gun, and lack of immediate description	Court held lineup was not unduly suggestive (record showed five fillers, two suspects), Biggers factors supported reliability; suppression denied and conviction affirmed
Whether the $150 public defender reimbursement fee was lawfully imposed	State acknowledged error and proposed remand for compliant hearing	Moore argued no hearing was conducted and remand would be pointless because statutory 90-day window passed; fee should be vacated	Court vacated the $150 fee outright because no adequate hearing on ability to pay occurred and remand was unnecessary and impractical

People v. Brooks, 187 Ill.2d 91 (1999) (defendant bears burden to prove pretrial ID was impermissibly suggestive; State can rebut by showing ID based on independent recollection)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
People v. Slim, 127 Ill.2d 302 (1989) (a single positive identification can sustain conviction if circumstances permit positive ID)
People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 (Ill. 2013) (trial court must give notice and conduct a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay public defender fee; hearing must consider financial affidavit and foreseeable ability to pay)
People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (Ill. 2012) (discusses statutory authority and proper imposition of public defender fee)
People v. Miller, 254 Ill. App.3d 997 (1993) (upholding lineups containing multiple suspects)
People v. Johnson, 123 Ill. App.3d 1008 (1984) (same)