State v. Lawson/James
291 P.3d 673
| Or. | 2012Background
- Two Oregon criminal cases (Lawson and James) were consolidated for review and remanded for new trials.
- Both convictions largely rested on eyewitness identifications obtained after unduly suggestive procedures.
- The Court of Appeals relied on Classen to assess reliability; Lawson and James challenged those methods.
- Oregon Supreme Court revises Classen, adopting an OEC-based framework addressing reliability and admissibility of eyewitness identifications.
- The Court reverses Lawson and remands for new trial; James is affirmed under the revised test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Classen adequate to ensure reliable identifications? | Lawson argues Classen inadequately guards reliability in light of new research. | James contends the Classen framework improperly excludes reliable identifications. | Classen is inadequate; adopt OEC-based framework. |
| What framework should govern admissibility of eyewitness identifications after suggestive procedures? | Lawson supports new system/estimator-variable framework. | James supports applying revised standard to exclude unreliable identifications. | Adopt revised, flexible OEC-based procedures addressing reliability. |
| What preliminary questions must the trial court address under the new framework? | LAWSON argues for rigorous assessment of reliability before admissibility. | JAMES argues for balancing probative value and risk of unfair prejudice. | Trial court must evaluate personal knowledge, rational basis, and usefulness under OEC before addressing admissibility. |
| Should the burden-shifting and evidentiary approach respect OEC rules rather than Classen’s two-step method? | Lawson urges burden and steps aligned with OEC 602, 701, 403. | James accepts recalibrated analysis but questions practical application. | Burden issues reframed under OEC; Classen’s two-step approach superseded. |
| Does the revised test permit use of expert testimony and remedies to manage unreliability and prejudice? | Lawson-type concerns support expert testimony and OEC 403 remedies. | James emphasizes avoiding excessive exclusion while preserving reliability. | Expert testimony and intermediate remedies under OEC 403 may be employed; reliability protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Classen, 285 Or 221 (1979) (two-step framework for admissibility of eyewitness identifications)
- State v. Johanesen, 319 Or 128 (1994) (Oregon Evidence Code-based approach to pretrial identification evidence)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability as central to admissibility under due process)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (addressed reliability and due process concerns in identification)
- State v. Henderson, Unknown Reporter (N.J. 2011) (2011) (federal and state science support for eyewitness reliability considerations)