806 S.E.2d 708
S.C.2017Background
- At ~5:45 a.m. on July 12, 2013, Officer Schnettler in a prison watchtower observed a man run from the woods and throw eight packages over the prison fence; he estimated the suspect was 80–90 yards away and described clothing and light-skinned calves.
- Minutes later Officer Lippe saw a man walking away from the prison on Highway 601 and described him (light-skinned Black man, neat haircut, black shirt, charcoal shorts).
- Deputy Kirkley stopped Shawn Wyatt near Highway 601 ~15 minutes after the fence incident; Wyatt’s clothing matched the reported descriptions.
- Schnettler viewed Wyatt in a single-person showup at the roadside and identified him; Lippe identified Wyatt from a watchtower ~40–50 yards away after being brought to the scene.
- The packages tested positive for cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana; Wyatt was charged and convicted for attempting to furnish contraband and possession with intent to distribute.
- Wyatt moved to suppress both out-of-court identifications; the trial court denied suppression (addressing only the Biggers second-prong), the convictions were affirmed on appeal, and certiorari was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schnettler’s showup should be suppressed as an unnecessarily suggestive identification | Wyatt: the single-person showup was inherently and unnecessarily suggestive, creating a substantial risk of misidentification | State: conceded showup is suggestive but asserted it was necessary under the circumstances (trained officer witness, fresh observation, proximity, need to act quickly) | Court: showup was suggestive but necessary under the first prong of Biggers; denial of suppression was correct (court should have analyzed necessity under prong one rather than going straight to prong two) |
| Whether Lippe’s identification should be suppressed as unreliable | Wyatt: identification was suggestive/unreliable and created substantial likelihood of misidentification | State: identification was reliable and cumulative; Lippe saw Wyatt walking away from prison matching prior description | Court: no error to admit Lippe’s ID; under Biggers second-prong reliability factors, no substantial likelihood of misidentification; identification was cumulative and not outcome-determinative |
| Whether trial court applied correct Biggers analysis | Wyatt: trial court erred by skipping necessity inquiry and addressing only reliability (second prong) | State: treated the showup as suggestive but focused on necessity and reliability arguments | Court: trial court should have considered necessity under Biggers first prong; nonetheless, necessity existed and admission of Schnettler’s ID was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Biggers v. Neil, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-prong due process test for out-of-court identifications)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (due process concerns arise only when identification procedures are both suggestive and unnecessary)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability governs admissibility when procedure is suggestive)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (showup permissible when necessary given circumstances, e.g., witness unable to go elsewhere)
- State v. Liverman, 398 S.C. 130 (2012) (South Carolina application of Biggers two-prong framework)
- Gibbs v. State, 408 S.C. 484 (2013) (factors supporting necessity of prompt showup: close in time/place, fresh memory, prevent suspect altering appearance)
- United States v. Hawkins, 499 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2007) (showups close in time/proximity may be justified to free innocents and guide investigation)