State v. Mount, 2012 Ohio 4119

Mount was charged with OVI, OVI refusal, failure to control, and a seatbelt violation.
Mount moved to suppress two eyewitness identifications of him as the crash fugitive and any derivative evidence.
Witnesses saw a bloody, blue-clad suspect exit the crashed car and enter nearby woods.
Trooper showed the witnesses a photo of the vehicle’s registered owner and told them it was that person.
Mount was later found hiding about a half-mile from the crash with a bloody face and blue coat.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; Mount pleaded no contest to OVI refusal and the State dismissed other charges; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the eyewitness identifications were unnecessarily suggestive	Mount argues procedure was unnecessarily suggestive	State argues procedure was not unduly suggestive and reliability survives	No reversible error; identifications admissible under totality of circumstances

State v. Garvin, 197 Ohio App.3d 453 (4th Dist. 2011) (unreliable identifications assessed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (two-prong test for unnecessarily suggestive identifications; reliability under totality of circumstances)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; mixed law and fact; defer to trial court on facts)
State v. Madison, 64 Ohio St.2d 322 (1980) (one-man showup near time of crime may be accurate under some circumstances)
State v. Dickess, 174 Ohio App.3d 658 (4th Dist. 2008) (factors for evaluating likelihood of misidentification)