State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela, 352 P.3d 917

In 2012 Tucson police chased suspects; Officer Jared Wolfe saw a thin, short suspect jump over a wall from ~20–30 feet away but did not see his face. Wolfe later viewed two individuals separately and identified the second, Sergio Rojo‑Valenzuela, based on clothing and build and was 99% certain despite not seeing the face.
Rojo‑Valenzuela moved to suppress the pretrial one‑person show‑up identification; the trial court held a Dessureault hearing but denied suppression without making specific findings about suggestiveness or reliability.
The State conceded the show‑up was inherently suggestive on appeal; the court of appeals nevertheless reviewed the suppression hearing transcript and found the identification reliable by clear and convincing evidence and admissible.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an appellate court may determine reliability in the first instance when the trial court failed to make findings.
The Supreme Court held that while trial courts should make reliability findings before exposing a jury to identification testimony, an appellate court may perform the reliability analysis on a sufficiently developed record (e.g., after a suppression/Dessureault hearing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appellate court may decide reliability of an inherently suggestive pretrial identification in the first instance	State: appellate review is permissible when record suffices	Rojo‑Valenzuela: reliability requires factual/credibility findings that only a trial judge can make; appellate court should not decide in first instance	Court: admissibility is a legal determination; appellate court may decide reliability if the trial record is sufficiently developed, though trial court should normally make findings
Standard for admitting identification after inherently suggestive procedure	State: rely on totality of circumstances and Biggers/Manson factors; admissible unless very substantial likelihood of misidentification	Defendant: high caution; trial judge must gatekeep based on witness credibility	Court: reliability (not credibility) is the linchpin; apply totality of circumstances; exclude only when a very substantial likelihood of misidentification exists

State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380 (1969) (requires evidentiary hearing when pretrial identification challenged)
State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433 (1985) (Arizona court previously conducted reliability analysis in first instance on appeal)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability, not suggestiveness alone, controls admissibility)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (enumerated factors for assessing reliability)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (identifications excluded only when very substantial likelihood of misidentification exists)