298 P.3d 619
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of murder and appeals alleging trial court erred in admitting two eyewitness in-court identifications.
- Oregon Supreme Court adopted Lawson/James revision to Classen, emphasizing Oregon Evidence Code standards and reliability variables.
- Incident occurred on New Year’s Eve 2007 in Portland; two white witnesses, D (19) and N (18), observed gunfire amid a large African-American crowd.
- Two years elapsed before trial; no line-up, photo array, or other pretrial identification procedure occurred for either witness.
- Pretrial discussions led to an unexecuted signal arrangement wherein a witness would identify defendant only if signaling from the witness stand; no signal occurred.
- Witness identifications occurred in court at defense table, in a highly suggestive context with nocturnal, high-stress conditions, and significant memory decay over time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in-court identifications were admissible under Lawson/James framework. | State argues Lawson/James controls; reliability must be assessed under OEC, not due process. | Schuman contends identifications are unreliable given system/estimator variables and suggestive procedures. | Reversed; trial court erred under Lawson/James framework; new trial required. |
| Whether the identifications were unduly prejudicial or unreliable under OEC 403 and related analysis. | State maintains identifications were sufficiently reliable given witness observations and certainty. | Schuman argues substantial reliability concerns preclude admissibility. | Reversed; reliability weighed against probative value; new hearing required. |
| Whether the trial court should have permitted the in-court identifications given the two-year time gap and lack of intervening non-suggestive identification. | State contends in-court identifications can be admitted when properly evaluated under current rules. | Schuman asserts time decay and lack of non-suggestive procedure undermine reliability. | Reversed; new trial required due to identification reliability concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Classen, 285 Or 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979) (two-step test for suggestive identifications (relevance then reliability under evidentiary rules))
- State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012) (revision of Classen; focus on Oregon Evidence Code with system/estimator variables)
- State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (2013) (similar concerns; new hearing on eyewitness identification required under Lawson/James)
- State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 57 P3d 970 (2002) (courts adjudicate law as it exists at time of review)