State of Missouri v. Brandon J. Naylor, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1208

On June 11, 2013 a stranger entered J.S.’s home through an unlocked front door, struggled with and struck J.S., and fled on foot; J.S. was face-to-face with the intruder for ~2 minutes and later reported a missing $20 and observed tattoos (cross and star).
J.S. called 911 and described the assailant (white male, lightish brown hair, glasses, khaki shorts, black shirt); police broadcast the description.
Officer Hand observed and detained Brandon Naylor a few blocks away wearing khaki shorts, glasses, and a black jersey with red numbering; officers discussed the detained man’s clothing and possible changes before bringing J.S. to view him.
Police transported J.S. a short distance; when she first saw Naylor (standing ~70 feet away) she immediately said, “That’s him,” and later identified him at trial, including tattoos she recalled.
Naylor was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary and third-degree assault, sentenced as a persistent offender to 14 years; he appealed arguing (1) the pretrial/show-up identification was impermissibly suggestive and (2) the court erred by excluding expert eyewitness-identification testimony.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress and excluded the expert; the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Naylor)	Held
Whether the out-of-court and in-court identifications should be suppressed as the product of an impermissibly suggestive police procedure	Identification admissible; victim had opportunity and reliably identified the defendant	Police statements and the show-up were unduly suggestive and created substantial risk of misidentification; identification should be suppressed	Denied — court found procedure not impermissibly suggestive; even if suggestive, identification was reliable under the five-factor test
Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification	Expert not necessary; jurors can evaluate identifications and existing safeguards suffice	Expert testimony on scientific research would help jury evaluate reliability	Denied — exclusion within court’s discretion under Missouri precedent; expert would not materially aid jury per controlling Missouri cases

State v. Lewis, 431 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. App.) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
State v. Morgan, 480 S.W.3d 349 (Mo. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of testimony)
State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. banc) (consider evidence at suppression hearing and trial)
State v. Ruff, 360 S.W.3d 880 (Mo. App.) (view record in light most favorable to trial court on suppression)
State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc) (identification admissible unless procedure unnecessarily suggestive)
Cothran v. State, 436 S.W.3d 247 (Mo. App.) (unduly suggestive standard and five-factor reliability analysis)
State v. Nelson, 334 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. App.) (victim viewing suspect at scene/arrest is approved; police may inform victim they have a suspect)
State v. Winters, 900 S.W.2d 636 (Mo. App.) (discrepancies in identification go to weight, not admissibility)
State v. Lawhorn, 762 S.W.2d 820 (Mo. banc) (trial court discretion to exclude expert eyewitness testimony)
State v. Whitmill, 780 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. banc) (jurors may evaluate eyewitness testimony without expert; safeguards protect defendant)
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. App.) (appellate courts bound by controlling Missouri Supreme Court precedent)
State v. Jones, 322 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. App.) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)