State v. Lujan
357 P.3d 20
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Early-morning robbery: victim sat in his car in his driveway when a robber opened the driver door, crouched next to him, asked “Why you following me?” and drove off in the car. Victim described the robber as "Spanish," wearing a black leather jacket and beanie, with long black-and-white hair protruding from the beanie.
- Police tracked the abandoned car by fluid, called a K9 unit that led officers to portable classrooms; other officers checked an AC unit and found Defendant hiding inside. Defendant was Hispanic, wearing a black beanie, had a goatee and closely-shaven head when arrested.
- At a nighttime show-up at the school (Defendant handcuffed, lit by police headlights), the victim identified Defendant as the robber. At a subsequent formal lineup the victim could not positively identify anyone and indicated uncertainty. At preliminary hearing the victim again pointed to Defendant (who was seated at counsel table).
- Defendant moved to exclude the show-up and in-court identifications; the trial court denied the motion, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, and appealed solely on admissibility of the identifications.
- The court applied State v. Ramirez’s five-factor eyewitness reliability test and found the show-up was highly suggestive and the identifications unreliable (racial difference, significant descriptive inconsistencies, failure to identify at lineup). The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of show-up and in-court identifications | Identifications were reliable: victim viewed robber at close range and later identified Defendant | Show-up was unduly suggestive and identifications unreliable given discrepancies and lineup non-identification | Court: Identifications were erroneously admitted; unreliable under Ramirez factors |
| Effect of racial difference on reliability | Racial difference less important because victim viewed face closely | Racial difference increases risk of misidentification here because victim claimed full-face view | Court: Racial difference is significant here and undermines reliability |
| Impact of lineup non-identification and inconsistent descriptions | Close-range viewing and later in-court ID support reliability despite lineup failure | Failure to ID at lineup and original description (long hair, no facial hair) contradict Defendant’s appearance | Court: Lineup failure and inconsistent description weigh strongly against reliability |
| Harmless-error analysis | Other evidence (beanie, Hispanic appearance, K9 track, Defendant’s comment) supports conviction | Erroneous admission of unreliable ID was prejudicial; State must show error harmless beyond reasonable doubt | Court: State failed to show harmlessness; conviction vacated and case remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) (sets five-factor test for eyewitness identification reliability)
- State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (requires cautionary jury instruction when eyewitness ID is central)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for evaluating likelihood of misidentification)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967) (due process standard for unnecessarily suggestive confrontations)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (prosecutor must show constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Villarreal, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995) (factors for harmless-error analysis)
- State v. Butterfield, 27 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2001) (discusses admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness ID)
- State v. Hubbard, 48 P.3d 953 (Utah 2002) (invites tailored jury instructions on eyewitness ID)
- State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (endorses more liberal admission of eyewitness expert testimony under Rule 702)