State v. Kayser
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 469
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On June 5, 2010, a woman observed a man in a car next to her being nude; her grandmother memorized the license plate and reported it to police.
- Police linked the plate to Amanda Mottert, married to Defendant, who regularly drove Mottert’s car.
- Officer Bass prepared three photographic lineups (18 photos total) including Defendant in one lineup; Defendant’s photo did not show him with glasses.
- On June 9, 2010, P.S., a nine-year-old, identified Defendant’s photo from the lineup, after which Mother corroborated but did not independently identify.
- Defense moved to suppress all out-of-court identifications and any in-court identification; trial court denied.
- After two days of trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual misconduct in the second degree and sentenced to six months
- The appeal challenges only the admission of P.S.’s photographic lineup identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pretrial identification was impermissibly suggestive | Kayser argues the procedure was suggestive | Kayser contends procedures coerced identification | Not impermissibly suggestive; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard for evidentiary rulings on suppression)
- Foster v. State, 348 S.W.3d 158 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for suppression)
- State v. Horn-buckle, 769 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. banc 1989) (two-prong test for pretrial identification reliability)
- State v. Hoff, 193 S.W.3d 366 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (unduly suggestive if based on witness recall vs. police procedure)
- State v. Glover, 951 S.W.2d 359 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (reliability versus suggestiveness in identification)
- State v. Hoopingarner, 845 S.W.2d 89 (Mo.App. E.D.1993) (when not impermissibly suggestive, evidence goes to weight)
- State v. Morant, 758 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.App. E.D.1988) (if not impermissibly suggestive, focus on reliability)
- State v. Winston, 959 S.W.2d 874 (Mo.App. E.D.1997) (discussion of suggestiveness with lineup; officer statements impact)
- King v. Bowersox, 213 F.Supp.2d 1026 (E.D. Mo.2001) (physically indicating a photo not per se impermissible; lack of coaching matters)