2019 Ohio 5144
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In the early morning of June 1, 2016, two masked men held D.C. and four others at gunpoint for ~20 minutes during a home burglary; masks covered only the lower half of the faces.
- D.C. initially was too upset to speak to police but two days later gave a detailed statement, said he recognized one assailant (Williams) from a Fourth of July party and by voice, and showed a Facebook photo he thought depicted the perpetrators.
- Detective Nixon created a six-photo lineup using the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway (different photo than the Facebook image); a blind administrator presented the array to D.C., who positively identified Williams.
- Williams moved to suppress the pretrial identification as impermissibly suggestive (arguing the prior Facebook photo tainted the lineup); the trial court denied the motion, finding the procedure not unduly suggestive and the ID reliable.
- A jury convicted Williams of multiple counts (aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, complicity to commit theft) with firearm specifications; he received an aggregate 37-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial photographic identification should be suppressed as unduly suggestive and unreliable | Photo-array was created and administered properly (computer-selected fillers, blind administrator); identification is admissible | Prior Facebook photo and prior identification rendered the lineup unduly suggestive and the ID unreliable | Denied. Procedure not unduly suggestive; ID reliable under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117 (11th Cir. 1992) (discusses appellate review of mixed questions of fact and law in suppression rulings)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court is trier of fact at suppression hearings and best positioned to assess credibility)
- State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (4th Dist. 1993) (appellate courts accept trial court factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Russell, 127 Ohio App.3d 414 (9th Dist. 1998) (legal determinations in suppression review are reviewed de novo)