State v. Rhines, 2011 Ohio 3615

Rhines was indicted Oct. 9, 2009 on aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and having weapons under disability.
Rhines moved to suppress all identification evidence, including a show-up, and a suppression hearing was held Oct. 28, 2009.
Officer Jones testified Roseberry identified Rhines at the scene and later through a show-up; items tied to Roseberry were found near Rhines under a porch.
Roseberry described the robber and the clothing/weapon; police recovered a matching shirt, cap, student ID, and handgun near Rhines.
Roseberry identified Rhines by honking as he drove by, about 15 feet away in a well-lit area; no handcuffs were used.
The trial court denied suppression on Jan. 5, 2010; Rhines later pled no contest on Aug. 5, 2010, and was sentenced to six years total.
On appeal, Rhines assigns three errors alleging Confrontation Clause issues, ineffective assistance, and show-up unreliability.
The appellate court reviews suppression rulings de novo with underlying facts accepted if supported by evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause—admission at suppression	State contends admission was permissible at suppression.	Rhines contends the statements violated confrontation rights.	No plain error; admission not error.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object	State argues counsel reasonably did not object given suppression context.	Rhines asserts ineffective assistance for not objecting.	Not deprived; no plain error or ineffective assistance established.
Show-up identification and due process	State argues show-up reliable under Biggers factors.	Rhines argues show-up was unduly suggestive and unreliable.	Identification reliable; show-up not unduly suggestive; no due process violation.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause limitations discussed)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980) (suppression hearings may rely on hearsay)
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (evidence admissibility at suppression)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (reliability as linchpin of identification)
State v. Marshall, 2004-Ohio-778 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances in show-up reliability)
State v. Hubbard, 2010-Ohio-3910 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2010) (show-ups permissible if not unduly suggestive)
State v. Tucker, 2005-Ohio-5227 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2005) (suppression hearing admissibility and hearsay)
Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (ineffective assistance and confrontation considerations)
State v. Porter, 178 Ohio App.3d 304 (2008) (plain-error review and suppression considerations)