183 A.3d 539
R.I.2018Background
- On Feb. 7, 2014, Farhan Mustafa was robbed at close range by two men; he recognized one as “Big D” and found the other to be a familiar face after a 10–15 second, <2-foot viewing.
- Mustafa and a friend (Ryan Gallant) later searched nightclub photos online; Mustafa identified a photo of the second assailant and Gallant supplied a name.
- Mustafa printed and annotated the internet photograph (wrote a name, signed and dated it) and later showed it to Detective Riley; after Alves’s arrest, Riley showed Mustafa a single photo of Alves, which Mustafa immediately confirmed.
- Alves moved to suppress the single-photo identification as unduly suggestive and argued testimonial references to Gallant’s naming were hearsay; the trial justice denied suppression and allowed testimony explaining why Mustafa wrote on the photo (not for truth).
- A jury convicted Alves of first-degree robbery and conspiracy; Alves appealed, arguing (1) the testimony that Gallant told Mustafa the name was hearsay and (2) the single-photo display was unduly suggestive and violated due process.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the testimony was not offered for truth but to explain markings on the photo, and the single-photo display was a confirmatory, not unnecessarily suggestive, procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Mustafa’s testimony that Gallant told him the name | Testimony explained why Mustafa marked the photo; admissible not for truth | Testimony was hearsay (assertion of identity) and should be excluded | Court: Not hearsay here — offered to explain why Mustafa marked the photo; Gallant testified and was cross-examinable |
| Suppression of single-photograph identification | State: single photo confirmed an ID Mustafa had already made; police did not suggest identity | Single-photo display was unnecessarily suggestive and violated due process | Court: Display was confirmatory, not unduly suggestive; no due-process violation; no need to analyze reliability further |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (out-of-court identification must show a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification before exclusion)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (U.S. 2012) (Due process concerns arise only when law enforcement uses an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary)
- State v. Luciano, 739 A.2d 222 (R.I. 1999) (showing a single photograph to confirm a prior identification is not necessarily unduly suggestive)
- State v. Franco, 750 A.2d 415 (R.I. 2000) (two-step test for reviewing suppression of identifications: (1) whether procedure was unduly suggestive; (2) if so, assess reliability)
- State v. Adams, 161 A.3d 1182 (R.I. 2017) (trial-justice discretion on admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)