State v. George, 2012 Ohio 3597

June 25, 2011 armed robbery at Oregon Express Bar & Grill; suspects identified by detectives via photo array.
George’s photo appeared in the top-left position of the six-photo array; blind administrators presented the array to witnesses.
George was indicted on six counts of aggravated robbery and six counts of kidnapping, each with a firearm specification; pled not guilty.
Motion to Suppress Identification Testimony filed; trial court denied suppression after a hearing with three State witnesses and no defense witnesses.
George pled no contest to all counts; court merged one kidnapping count with each aggravated robbery count and sentenced to concurrent terms with firearm specs; postrelease control imposed.
George appeals challenging the photo identification as unduly suggestive, arguing due process violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the identification procedure unduly suggestive to render unreliable?	George claims cornrow hairstyle singled him out.	George argues photo array was impermissibly suggestive.	No; procedure not unduly suggestive; identification reliable.

State v. Marshall, 2004-Ohio-778 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19920 (Ohio 2004)) (identification due-process standards; substantial likelihood of misidentification anchoring suppression)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (due-process standard for pretrial identifications; totality of circumstances)
Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) (reliability standard for identification evidence)
State v. Poindexter, 2007-Ohio-3461 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21036 (Ohio 2007)) (burden on defendant to show impermissibly suggestive procedure; totality of circumstances)
State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988) (identification procedures; impermissible suggestiveness standard)