334 P.3d 1276
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Valenzuela was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received two concurrent 11-year terms.
- Before trial, Valenzuela moved to suppress pretrial and in-court identifications and sought a Dessureault hearing.
- The trial court denied suppression, finding Wolfe’s identification not a typical case suitable for suppression and did not conduct a Dessureault-style reliability analysis.
- Show-up identification of Valenzuela was inherently suggestive, but the state argued exigent circumstances supported reliability.
- The court relied on Biggers factors and other indicia of reliability (short observation, clothing/build, prior description, witness certainty) to admit the identifications.
- The court also admitted Detective Gonzalez’s testimony about Wolfe’s identification as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) and addressed a challenged jury instruction on attempted first-degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial identification was unduly suggestive requiring Dessureault review | State concedes initial identification was inherently suggestive and required analysis; reliability may justify admission | Valenzuela argues the Dessureault analysis was necessary to suppress tainted identifications | Identifications could be admitted based on reliability after analysis; Dessureault analysis required but favoring reliability supported admissibility |
| Whether admission of Wolfe’s pretrial and in-court identifications complied with due process | Identifications were reliable despite suggestiveness; corroborating video supported reliability | Suggestive procedure without proper suppression undermines due process | Identifications were admissible given reliability under Biggers and related precedents |
| Whether Gonzalez’s testimony about Wolfe’s identification was properly admitted | Statement of identification by a declarant-witness is non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) | Valenzuela contends hearsay concerns were not properly addressed | Admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) with the due-process analysis applied to the identification evidence |
| Whether the jury instruction on attempted first-degree murder was fundamentally flawed | Instruction could be read to allow finding based on any crime | Instruction, read in context, indicated it referred to first-degree murder | No reasonable juror would interpret as allowing conviction for a different crime; no prejudice shown even if error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380 (Ariz. 1968) (requires a Dessureault hearing when in-court identification is tainted by pretrial identification)
- State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433 (Ariz. 1985) (reliability may permit admission of suggestive identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (identification reliability as a focus when procedures are suggestive)
- Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (Biggers factors for assessing reliability of pretrial identifications)
- State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509 (Ariz. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard; mixed question of law and fact for identification issues)
- State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 (Ariz. 2000) (show-up identifications and reliability considerations under Biggers)
- State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2009) (discussion of reliability factors and admissibility of identification evidence)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (limits of due process in facially suggestive identification procedures)