State v.Ezekial Johnson, 251 A.3d 872

Background

On July 16, 2007, taxi driver Jose Rodriguez was shot and later died; three men were seen exiting the cab and two tossed baseball caps into nearby bushes.
Lymari Gonzalez watched the cab pass, saw three men run by, and later (in 2017 at a bail hearing) made an in-court identification of Ezekial Johnson; she had earlier (2007) misidentified two other individuals from a photo array.
Two hats seized at the scene were DNA-tested in 2017; the black hat’s major DNA component matched Johnson’s profile.
Cooperating witness Jon Thomas testified that Jayquan Garlington told him Johnson shot the driver; another witness (Marcus Gibbs) implicated Johnson and the defense offered one alibi witness.
A jury convicted Johnson of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm during a violent crime, and carrying a firearm without a license; he was sentenced to consecutive life terms plus ten years.
On appeal Johnson challenged: (1) admission of Gonzalez’s in-court identification (Rule 602 and due process/suggestiveness); (2) limits on cross-examination (Confrontation/attacking witness bias); and (3) denial of his motion for a new trial (weight/credibility of evidence, including DNA).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency under Rule 602 to make in-court ID	State: Gonzalez had sufficient opportunity to view perpetrators and personal knowledge to identify Johnson.	Johnson: Short observation of a moving vehicle with three occupants, prior misidentifications, and long delay show lack of personal knowledge.	Court: No abuse of discretion; Gonzalez had adequate opportunity to perceive and testimony goes to credibility, not competence.
Due process challenge to in-court ID (suggestiveness)	State: Identification was independently reliable under Biggers factors despite courtroom context.	Johnson: Identification at bail hearing was impermissibly suggestive (he was the only Black man at counsel table; possibly shackled) and tainted reliability.	Court: Even assuming some suggestiveness, Biggers factors established independent reliability; admission was proper.
Limits on cross-examination (Confrontation) — Morris statements & Thomas bias	State: Trial court afforded reasonable latitude to probe bias and motives; some questions were irrelevant or prejudicial.	Johnson: Excluding Morris’s statements (via Detective Araujo) and limiting questions about Thomas’s alleged grudge against Garlington prevented meaningful confrontation.	Court: Morris argument waived; exclusion of Thomas line was within discretion — sufficient cross‑examination allowed to expose bias.
Motion for new trial — weight of evidence and credibility	State: DNA plus corroborating witness testimony and records supported verdict.	Johnson: Testimony was inconsistent and unreliable; DNA did not prove presence at scene; in-court ID was improperly admitted.	Court: Trial justice’s independent review found ample grounds to deny new trial; credibility findings and DNA tied defendant to scene.

Key Cases Cited

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identifications)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (in-court identifications often involve suggestion; due-process test applies only when law-enforcement-created suggestiveness exists)
United States v. Correa-Osorio, 784 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2015) (discussing prosecutor-facilitated in-court identifications and the ‘‘danger zones’’ of suggestiveness)
United States v. Thomas, 849 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2017) (in-court identification not impermissibly suggestive where no law-enforcement orchestration)
State v. Washington, 189 A.3d 43 (R.I. 2018) (review standards for identification suppression and application of Biggers)
State v. Franco, 750 A.2d 415 (R.I. 2000) (two-step approach: impermissible suggestiveness then reliability inquiry)
State v. Vanover, 721 A.2d 430 (R.I. 1998) (admission of identification permitted if independently reliable)
State v. Ranieri, 586 A.2d 1094 (R.I. 1991) (Rule 602 competence: focus on opportunity to perceive)
State v. Hall, 940 A.2d 645 (R.I. 2008) (competence vs. credibility distinctions)
State v. Storey, 102 A.3d 641 (R.I. 2014) (constitutional right to reasonable latitude in cross-examination)
State v. Gumkowski, 223 A.3d 321 (R.I. 2020) (trial justice as thirteenth juror on new-trial motions; deferential review)