Smith v. State
2015 Ark. App. 418
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Claude Smith was convicted after a jury trial of hit-and-run causing injury and three misdemeanors (driving with suspended license for DWI, no proof of insurance, failure to yield to a pedestrian) arising from a January 6, 2013 accident in which Lois Sandusky was struck in a crosswalk.
- Investigators traced a white 2007 Ford F-150 seen on surveillance video; initial ACIC tag search briefly focused on another motorist (Steven Kissinger), but surveillance later excluded him.
- A second ACIC search identified a tag matching the truck type registered to Smith; police prepared a photo array from DMV photos and presented it to both Sandusky and eyewitness Payne Colton late January 2013; each identified Smith in the photo spread and again at trial.
- Smith moved to suppress the photo-lineup and in-court identifications as unduly suggestive; the trial court denied suppression pretrial and renewed motions, and the jury convicted.
- On appeal Smith argued the photo spread was impermissibly suggestive because other photos did not closely match witness descriptions (facial hair, age, hair), making Smith stand out and risking misidentification.
- The appellate court reviewed under Arkansas precedent requiring suppression only when the identification procedure was so suggestive as to make misidentification virtually inevitable and declined to find the lineup unduly suggestive; it affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial photographic lineup was unduly suggestive | Smith: photos in spread did not match witness descriptions (only Smith fit square face/ facial hair/age), making lineup suggestive and likely to produce misidentification | State: photos were similar in race, hair, facial hair, age and head shape; officers did not influence witnesses | Court: lineup not unnecessarily suggestive; affirmed denial of suppression |
| Whether in-court identifications should be suppressed as tainted by the photo spread | Smith: in-court IDs flowed from impermissible photo procedure | State: even if suggestive, reliability under totality of circumstances allows jury to decide | Court: because photo spread not unduly suggestive, did not analyze reliability factors; in-court IDs admissible |
| Whether officers improperly influenced witnesses during photo procedure | Smith: witnesses experienced pressure and prior suggestion (e.g., after Kissinger was excluded) | State: officers did not suggest choice or pressure; recorded interviews corroborate neutrality | Court: found no officer suggestion; procedure conducted neutrally |
| Whether appellant carried burden to show misidentification risk | Smith: argued the composition of the array created substantial possibility of misidentification | State: burden rests on appellant and was not met | Court: appellant failed to show lineup was suspect; burden not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. State, 357 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. 2009) (articulates clearly erroneous standard for pretrial identification review and permits denial if identification reliable under totality of circumstances)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (sets reliability factors for assessing suggestive identification procedures)
- Fields v. State, 76 S.W.3d 868 (Ark. 2002) (photographic identifications followed by in-court IDs admissible unless pretrial lineup so suggestive as to create substantial possibility of misidentification)