State v. Conrick
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Robbery occurred Aug 4, 2009 in a senior housing complex; Gosseen identified Conrick in a photo lineup and James also identified him in the lineup; trial defense moved to suppress all pretrial identifications arguing unduly suggestive procedures; trial court overruled and lineup evidence, plus related in-court identifications, were admitted; jury convicted Conrick of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; sentences consecutive 10 and 5 years; Conrick appeals challenging suppression ruling and trial objections to identifications.
- Evidence at trial relied solely on identifications by Gosseen and James; no physical or circumstantial evidence linked Conrick to the crime; James could not testify to an in-court identification due to macular degeneration; Gosseen testified via videotaped deposition.
- Motion to suppress identified the lineup as tainted; the hearing included Detective Strahm’s testimony about lineup construction and identifications; the trial court denied the motion; the lineup contained six photos with some blondes; Conrick’s counsel argued lineup was suggestive but the court ruled it was not.
- At trial, Neill and Strahm testified about the lineup and identifications; James identified Mitchell and Conrick in the lineup but not Conrick in court; Gosseen identified Conrick from the lineup and later in deposition; defense renewed objections to lineup testimony which were overruled; the jury heard the deposition identification of Conrick.
- Conclusion: trial court’s judgment affirmed; evidence of identifications, though not strong, supported conviction; issues centered on whether lineup was unduly suggestive and if any error affected reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the photo lineup unduly suggestive? | Conrick (State) argues lineup tainted witnesses. | Conrick contends lineup impermissibly suggested him as suspect. | No clear error; lineup not unduly suggestive. |
| Did the court err in admitting pretrial identifications? | State argues admissible under two-step Hunter framework. | Conrick argues taint requires exclusion. | Admissible; not unduly suggestive, credibility for jury to weigh. |
| Could in-court identifications be admitted if pretrial lineup was not unduly suggestive? | State relies on non-suggestive lineup to permit in-court testimony. | Identifications should be excluded if tainted. | Yes; in-court identifications were permitted as independent jury-credibility questions. |
| Was the admission of the lineup and identifications harmless given the lack of other evidence? | Identifications were sole link to defendant. | Possible weight issues, but not constitutional error. | Court preserved rulings; verdict supported by identification evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hunter, 43 S.W.3d 336 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (two-step analysis for pretrial identifications: unduly suggestive first, reliability second)
- State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. banc 1989) (foundation for admissibility of pretrial identifications)
- State v. Glover, 951 S.W.2d 359 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (reliability factors for identification evidence)
- State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1999) (reliability factors guide second-step analysis)
- State v. Floyd, 347 S.W.3d 115 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (disparities in appearance do not alone render lineup unduly suggestive)
- State v. Williams, 18 S.W.3d 425 (Mo.App. S.D.2000) (diverse photo lineups not inherently unduly suggestive)
- State v. Allen, 274 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App. W.D.2008) (lineup not impermissibly suggestive due to facial variety)
- State v. Cosby, 976 S.W.2d 464 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (lineup diversity does not invalidate admissibility)
- State v. Hadley, 736 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.App. S.D.1987) (not impermissibly suggestive when lineup varies in features)
- Hayes, 624 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App. W.D.1981) (lineup need not replicate every characteristic exactly)