State v. Combs, 150 N.M. 766

Deputy Frazier stopped a vehicle for driving with headlights off and cited the female driver who claimed Natasha Torres and provided her birth date and SSN.
Two months later, Deputy Nyce revealed the driver was not Torres, allegedly Defendant Ila Combs, and a forgery charge was filed.
At the preliminary hearing, Deputy Frazier identified Combs as the driver from the January 9 incident.
Before the hearing, Frazier was shown a single mug shot of Combs, which refreshed but did not memorialize his memory.
Defendant moved to suppress any future in-court identification, arguing the mug shot made the identification inherently unreliable.
The district court denied the motion to suppress; at trial, Frazier again identified Combs and testified to seeing the mug shot prior to identification; Combs was convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the showup with a mug shot tainted in-court identification	State contends identification was reliable despite showup.	Combs argues showup was impermissibly suggestive and violated due process.	Showup was impermissibly suggestive; tainted in-court identification; conviction reversed.

Patterson v. LeMaster, 130 N.M. 179 (2001-NMSC-013) ((involving a showup identification after armed robbery))
State v. Johnson, 135 N.M. 567 (2004-NMCA-058) ((showup identification by witnesses))
State v. Flores, 147 N.M. 542 (2010-NMSC-002) ((opportunity to observe in a memorable context))
State v. Jacobs, 129 N.M. 448 (2000-NMSC-026) ((witnesses observed perpetrator during car ride; artist sketch))
State v. Stampley, 127 N.M. 426 (1999-NMSC-027) ((witnesses observed perpetrator during a crime))
State v. Cheadle, 101 N.M. 282 (1983) ((prior close observation of perpetrator))