155 Conn.App. 107
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Victim Guy Dowdell was carjacked at gunpoint in Hartford in the early morning; his phone was taken and his vehicle driven off.
- Police broadcast the vehicle description and license plate; Detective Pia located a matching car and pursued the driver (the defendant) in a high‑speed chase during which the defendant allegedly pointed a weapon at officers.
- The defendant crashed, fled, was apprehended and handcuffed near the wreck; police notified Dowdell that they had a possible suspect.
- Officer Stachowicz transported Dowdell to the crash scene, reviewed a Hartford Police ‘‘Witness Instructions for Show Up Identification’’ form with him, and warned the person he would see may or may not be the perpetrator.
- Dowdell viewed the handcuffed defendant one‑on‑one at the scene and immediately identified him as the assailant.
- Defendant moved to suppress pretrial and in‑court identification as unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable; the trial court denied the motion. The jury convicted the defendant of third‑degree larceny and interfering with an officer; the defendant appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a one‑on‑one showup was unnecessarily suggestive | State: showup was justified by exigent circumstances and conducted with caution | Dakers: one‑on‑one, handcuffed suspect, destroyed car and police presence made the procedure unduly suggestive and likely to produce misidentification | Court: showup was suggestive but not unnecessarily so; exigent circumstances justified it |
| Whether identification was unreliable under totality of circumstances | State: prompt identification while memory fresh supports reliability | Dakers: circumstances (stress, police presence, condition of scene) undermined reliability | Court: did not reach reliability prong because identification was not unnecessarily suggestive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (standard for assessing suggestiveness and reliability of identifications)
- State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677 (1993) (one‑on‑one showups permissible where exigent circumstances exist)
- State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721 (1991) (one‑to‑one confrontations are inherently suggestive)
- State v. Foote, 122 Conn. App. 258 (2010) (application of suggestiveness/reliability framework)
- State v. Amarillo, 198 Conn. 285 (1986) (exigent‑circumstances justification for prompt identification)
- State v. Middleton, 170 Conn. 601 (1976) (prompt on‑the‑scene confrontations can enhance accuracy)