Reyes v. State, 292 A.3d 416

Early-morning shooting (Dec. 28, 2019): Daniel Bartley was shot 11 times after briefly encountering Andy Reyes, whom Bartley knew through his then‑girlfriend, Emily Barahona.
Bartley identified "Andy" to police in the hospital and provided contextual details (bars, hangouts) before being shown a photo; police later displayed a single photograph of Reyes (extracted from Facebook and matched via facial‑recognition to an MVA photo).
Reyes was charged with attempted first‑degree murder and related offenses; he moved to suppress the pretrial identification and objected to admission/authentication of home‑security camera video and stills.
At the suppression hearing the circuit court found the single‑photo procedure impermissibly suggestive but ruled Bartley’s identification reliable; the court also admitted the security footage/stills at trial and limited cross‑examination about Bartley’s alleged prior assaults on Barahona.
On appeal the court (Appellate Court of Maryland) affirmed: it (1) characterized the identification as a confirmatory identification supported by sufficient familiarity (so suppression was unnecessary), (2) held the surveillance video and derived stills were properly authenticated under the "silent witness" theory, and (3) upheld limiting cross‑examination as within the trial court’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Pretrial identification suppression	Single‑photo showup was impermissibly suggestive and created substantial risk of misidentification	Identification was confirmatory (Bartley knew Reyes months prior); any suggestion irrelevant because of sufficient familiarity	Identification was confirmatory and supported by sufficient familiarity; suppression denied
Admissibility/authentication of home‑camera video and stills	Foundation insufficient (needed make/model, activation/recording details, maintenance, transmission chain)	Homeowner testified about camera, alerts, receipt of recording; silent‑witness theory sufficed to authenticate	Admission was proper; testimony provided adequate foundation under silent‑witness theory
Limitation of cross‑examination about Bartley’s alleged assaults on Barahona	Questions were relevant to impeachment, motive to lie, and to support a defense‑of‑others instruction	Evidence was irrelevant propensity evidence; no basis for defense‑of‑others and no factual foundation for bias/impeachment lines	Exclusion upheld: court did not abuse discretion; evidence was largely irrelevant or lacked foundation and would be propensity evidence

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (due‑process concern where suggestive ID creates substantial likelihood of misidentification)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (adopted reliability as controlling due‑process criterion for identifications)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors to assess reliability of identifications)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (state action prerequisite and role of jury in assessing reliability absent suggestive police conduct)
State v. Greene, 240 Md. App. 119 (2019) (distinguishing selective vs. confirmatory identifications)
State v. Greene, 469 Md. 156 (2020) (affirming the Greene analytical framework)
Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642 (2008) (pictorial‑testimony and silent‑witness theories for authenticating photographic/video evidence)
Jackson v. State, 460 Md. 107 (2018) (low threshold for authentication; jury may ultimately decide accuracy)