State v. Mitchell, 2013 Ohio 3761

On Oct. 5, 2011, Christopher Mitchell robbed William Tipton at gunpoint in a laundromat and fled in Tipton’s red Dodge Avenger; Mitchell wore a red t‑shirt over his face during the robbery.
Police located Mitchell driving the Avenger the next day; after a chase he crashed and was arrested while wearing a red t‑shirt.
Detective Saunders used the county CJIS to generate a computerized photo array and selected five photos closely matching Mitchell; a blind administrator presented the array to Tipton.
Tipton identified Mitchell from the photospread. Mitchell moved to suppress that identification as unduly suggestive.
The trial court denied the motion; Mitchell was later convicted of aggravated robbery (with firearm specification) and related offenses and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive and the identification therefore unreliable	State: lineup was generated by CJIS, Saunders selected similar photos, administered by a blind officer, red shirt not prominent — procedure not suggestive	Mitchell: he was the only person in the array wearing a red t‑shirt and Tipton had seen Mitchell on TV in a red shirt, creating a substantial likelihood of misidentification	Court: lineup was not impermissibly suggestive; blind administration and computerized array avoided unfairness; red shirt was minimally visible and Tipton identified eyes; suppression denial affirmed

Retherford v. Maxwell, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1994) (trial court findings of fact at suppression hearing entitled to deference on appeal)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (defendant must show identification procedure was so suggestive as to create a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification; consider totality of circumstances)