300 P.3d 238
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- This case concerns denial of a motion in limine to exclude eyewitness identification evidence.
- Defendant pleaded guilty conditionally to public indecency, reserving the right to appeal the limine ruling.
- The appeal followed a Lawson/James decision that revised the prior Classen framework for eyewitness identifications.
- Lawson/James applied to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting out-of-court and in-court identifications.
- The incident occurred March 9, 1999 on I-205, involving Wyland (and her 12-year-old daughter Payne and friends Christensen and Burns) who observed a driver exposing himself in a black Nissan; defendant was the Nissan’s registered owner.
- Lidey conducted a pretrial photographic lineup using the DMV photo of defendant (in black and white) and five nonsuspect photos, with defendant in position five; the lineup was designed to resemble the defendant’s appearance rather than the victims’ description.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 1999 out-of-court identifications under Lawson/James | Lawson/James requires exclusion if lineup unduly suggestive | Lineup could be unduly suggestive due to defendant’s photo standing out | Not unduly suggestive; admissible under Lawson/James |
| Admissibility of in-court identifications given long time lapse | In-court identifications rely on memory not original observations | Memory decay undermines reliability | In-court identifications permissible; evidence rationally based on first-hand perceptions |
| Admissibility of victims’ certainty self-appraisals about identifications | Self-certainty evidence contributes to reliability | Certainty is not a reliable indicator of accuracy and may be misleading | Admissible as part of overall eyewitness identification evidence under the framework; not excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P.3d 673 (Or. 2012) (revised Classen framework for eyewitness identifications; duty of gatekeeping by trial court)
- State v. Classen, 285 Or 221, 590 P.2d 1198 (Or. 1979) (established test for unduly suggestive photographic lineups (pre-Lawson))
- State v. Sarich, 352 Or 600, 291 P3d 647 (Or. 2012) (adopts Lawson/James approach; distrusts certainty as reliability indicator)
- State v. James, (cite official reporter) ((Court year)) (contrasts reliability under strong features before/after suggestive procedures)
- State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 57 P.3d 970 (Or. App. 2002) (benchmark for error in applying Lawson/Jury framework)
- State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (Or. App. 2013) (application of Lawson/James framework on pretrial evidentiary rulings)