430 P.3d 1278
Idaho2018Background
- On May 6, 2016 a 12-year-old (B.K.) driving an ATV was followed into his driveway by a pickup whose male driver rammed the ATV and threatened to shoot him; B.K. gave a contemporaneous description of the driver and vehicle and said he could identify the driver.
- Deputy Kempton obtained Steven Moore’s driver’s license photo and Sergeant Cotter showed that single photograph to B.K. the next day; B.K. identified Moore within seconds and said he was “positive.” Moore was arrested.
- Months later, Kempton showed B.K. a six-person photographic array (black-and-white booking photos) and B.K. again identified Moore and initialed the photo.
- Moore moved to suppress the out-of-court identifications; the district court (on stipulated facts) found the single-photo showup was impermissibly suggestive but held the identification reliable under the five-factor Manson/Neil test and denied suppression.
- Moore entered an Alford plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, applying the Hoisington/Almaraz framework and weighing the five reliability factors against the suggestiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the single-photograph showup was overly suggestive | State conceded single-photo showup was suggestive | Moore argued showup was impermissibly suggestive and tainted ID | Court: showup was overly suggestive (stipulated) but issue moves to reliability analysis |
| Whether the identification was reliable under the five-factor test | State: five factors (opportunity, attention, description accuracy, certainty, short delay) supported reliability despite suggestiveness | Moore: challenged several factor findings (lighting/opportunity, description accuracy, officer not recording ID, suggestiveness undermines certainty) | Court: affirmed district court—each reliability factor supported admission; overall reliability outweighed suggestiveness |
| Use of victim’s description of vehicle to support reliability | State pointed to matching vehicle description as corroborative of accuracy | Moore: vehicle description was not used in identification and was factually inaccurate; should not be considered | Court: court erred to rely on vehicle description that was not part of the ID process, but other description-to-photo similarities sufficed, so error harmless |
| Weight of witness certainty given police procedures | State: rapid, repeated identifications (next day and in six-pack) showed high certainty | Moore: lack of recorded showup and suggestive police conduct made claimed certainty unreliable | Court: no evidence of officer manipulation or willful failure to record; certainty factor properly weighed in favor of reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (sets out five-factor test for reliability of identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (addresses reliability vs. suggestiveness and factors to consider)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (discusses due-process inquiry for identification procedures)
- State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153 (Idaho two-step test: first suggestiveness, then reliability analysis)
- State v. Almaraz, 154 Idaho 584 (clarifies use of Manson/Neil factors and ‘‘estimator variables’’ in Idaho decisions)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (authority for Alford plea; procedural posture noted in case)