State v. Mitchell, 275 P.3d 905

Mitchell convicted of aggravated robbery largely on eyewitness ID from Trevino’s lineup.
Trevino identified Mitchell from a six-photo lineup and wrote 100% certainty on the lineup form.
Trevino knew Mitchell before the robbery, raising questions about reliability.
Mitchell moved to suppress the identification and challenged PIK Crim.3d 52.20’s certainty factor.
Trial court issued the full PIK 52.20 instruction; Mitchell was convicted and appealed.
Supreme Court granted review to address whether the certainty factor in PIK 52.20 could be used and its impact on the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the certainty factor in PIK Crim.3d 52.20 should be deleted	Mitchell argues the factor is untrustworthy and misleading	State contends certainty remains a valid factor in admissibility/weight	Yes; certainty factor should not be used in the instruction.
Whether the instruction misled the jury about certainty’s weight	Mitchell asserts the factor misleads on reliability	State argues instruction does not mislead given facts	No reversible misdirection under the case’s circumstances.
Whether familiarity of witness with defendant negates need for cautionary instruction	Mitchell asserts familiar witness requires no cautionary factor	State contends jury should still be instructed under certain circumstances	Instruction warranted but still allowed; familiarity reduced reliance on the factor.

State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385 (1981) (eyewitness cautionary procedures and reliability concerns)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability concerns in eyewitness identifications)
State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811 (2003) (addressed Biggers/Ramirez factors and certainty issue)
State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294 (2006) (eight factors for suppression analysis; certainty among them)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (limits on police practice; identification reliability and jurisprudence)