247 So. 3d 133
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim James Peaden, age 79, was robbed at gunpoint on Feb. 2, 2017 after offering a ride to a young man he had seen eating at the same restaurant a day or two earlier; the man was later identified as D.M.
- During the encounter the assailant pointed a handgun, took about $27, briefly donned a ski mask, demanded a phone, and drove away in Peaden’s truck.
- Police prepared a six-photo computer-generated lineup (including D.M.) and Peaden selected D.M.’s photo the next day; Peaden later made an in-court identification at adjudication.
- D.M. was charged in juvenile court with armed robbery; he moved to suppress the photographic lineup and the in-court identification and contested sufficiency of the evidence.
- At adjudication the juvenile court credited Peaden’s testimony and found D.M. delinquent; the court imposed two years in secure placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence: whether Peaden’s ID supports adjudication for armed robbery | Prosecution: Peaden’s firsthand sightings, prior acquaintance, and courtroom ID proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt | D.M.: eyewitness mistakes and inconsistencies (height, weapon description, prior statement omissions) undermine reliability | Held: Sufficient — prior acquaintance, adequate opportunity to view, and credible testimony support conviction |
| Suppression of photographic lineup: whether lineup was unduly suggestive | Prosecution: lineup was acceptable; Peaden already familiar with D.M. which supports ID | D.M.: inclusion/creation of lineup using his ID number and photo made procedure suggestive | Held: Denied — photos of similar-looking subjects meant lineup was not unduly suggestive; prior acquaintance also undermined suppression claim |
| Suppression of in-court identification: whether tainted by the lineup | Prosecution: in-court ID independent and reliable given prior acquaintance and non-suggestive lineup | D.M.: in-court ID was tainted by the allegedly suggestive pretrial procedure | Held: Denied — because lineup posed no substantial likelihood of misidentification, in-court ID admissible |
| Patent error/minutes: whether disposition/minutes required correction or advisals | State: trial court advised juvenile about two-year post-conviction period; minutes omitted secure placement language | D.M.: potential incomplete advisal and incorrect minutes | Held: Remand — affirm adjudication; remand to amend minutes to reflect two years in secure placement; appellate court clarified post-conviction prescriptive period if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for sufficiency review under due process)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (sets test for admissibility of pretrial identifications under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Evans, 463 So.2d 673 (prior acquaintance can justify photographic corroboration even if only one photo matches)
- State v. Williams, 402 So.2d 678 (line-up is unduly suggestive if only one person matches perpetrator characteristics)
- State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (no rigid criteria for photo lineups; facts must be analyzed case-by-case)
- State v. Lynch, 436 So.2d 567 (discusses Jackson sufficiency standard in Louisiana)
- State v. Nicholas, 397 So.2d 1308 (identification reliability factors mirrored in Louisiana decisions)