State v. Lawson
239 Or. App. 363
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Convicted of five counts aggravated murder, three counts attempted aggravated murder, and two counts first-degree robbery; appeal focused on victim Sherl Hilde’s in-court identification.
- Pretrial identification procedures were found unduly suggestive: an individual photo view and a courtroom view occurred before trial.
- State acknowledged the suggestiveness of the procedures; the central issue was whether the identification had an independent source.
- Trial court applied Classen/Manson framework to assess independent reliability against suggestive procedures.
- Two-year gap between the crime and in-court identification; Sherl’s prior identifications in photo arrays were unsuccessful; her description post-crime was limited and largely generic.
- Majority affirmed admission of the in-court identification; Sercombe dissented, urging reversal and remand for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the in-court identification was admissible despite unduly suggestive pretrial procedures. | Lawson notes suggestive pretrial procedures taint the identification. | State must prove an independent source for the identification. | Yes; identification had an independent source; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Classen, 285 Or. 221 (1979) (multifactor test for reliability of eyewitness identifications after suggestive procedures; burden on state to show independent source or reliability under totality of circumstances)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability as linchpin; weigh opportunity, attention, description, certainty, and time against suggestiveness)
- Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) (illustrative of heightened risk from suggestive procedures and the need for independent basis)
- Biggers v. United States, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors to assess misidentification likelihood: opportunity, attention, description accuracy, certainty, time lapse)
- State v. Ray, 157 Or. App. 601 (1998) (identification had independent source where witness had long-term familiarity and immediate recognition despite some suggestiveness)
- State v. Najibi, 150 Or. App. 194 (1997) (upholding independent reliability despite some suggestive procedures in showups/arrays)
- State v. Davie, 56 Or. App. 507 (1982) (discussion of independent source and reliability in eyewitness identifications)