State v. Chaffin, 2012 Ohio 634

Chaffin convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, based on identification evidence after a suppressed motion.
Two photo spreads were used to identify Chaffin; first spread failed to identify him, second spread allegedly made him uniquely identifiable as bald.
Chaffin moved to suppress pre-trial and in-court identifications; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
During trial, the victim testified to the events of January 24, 2010 outside the apartment at 118 N. Alex Road and identified Pennington initially and later Chaffin in a second spread.
Trial court convicted Chaffin on May 19, 2010; he was sentenced to five years in prison on June 3, 2010.
The court of appeals sustained the suppression issue in part and remanded for further findings on reliability; other assignments of error were deemed moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive.	Chaffin argues the second spread was inherently suggestive.	Chaffin contends suggestiveness tainted the identifications.	Partially sustained; remanded for reliability findings.

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification reliability and due process under totality of the circumstances)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for evaluating reliability of eyewitness identifications)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (due process in identification procedures; suggestiveness concerns)
State v. Lathan, 30 Ohio St.2d 92 (1972) (in-court identifications admissible if based on independent observation or harmless error)
State v. Barker, 53 Ohio St.2d 135 (1978) (reliability essential when considering admissibility of identifications)