Frisaura v. StateFrisaura v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
OPINION
Per Curiam:Lucia Johanna Frisaura appeals from her conviction of grand larceny. On June 30, 1976, Salvador Alfonso struck up a *15conversation with a woman in a bar at the Las Vegas Hilton. The woman, who had a foreign accent, told Alfonso that she was from Holland аnd showed him her passport. Alfonso invited her to his room and the two of them ate breakfast and watched television for a while. They then retired to separate beds. Thе following morning both Alfonso’s money, amounting to $1,500 in cash and casino chips, and the woman were missing. He notified the security guard of the theft and was taken to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department where he was shown about five hundred photographs of women. From this group he picked out one woman, a known prostitute, as bеing similar in appearance to the woman he had taken to his room. Alfonso subsеquently returned to his home in Louisiana and, within a couple of weeks, received frоm the police a package of five or six photographs in the mail. This pаckage did not include a photograph of the woman he had previously identified. Nonetheless, from that group he positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
At trial, Alfonso again identified her. Also testifying at the trial wеre two men who had been victims of very similar crimes, both of whom identified appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses against them. On appeal appellant alleges error in the admission into evidence of: (1) the two other similar offenses; (2) testimony about the photographic line-up; and, (3) two copies of photographs substituted for those used in the original line-up.
(1) Appellant’s defense at triаl was mistaken identity. While evidence of other bad acts is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution, a recognized exception to this rule exists where the evidеnce is relevant to the identity of the perpetrator. Reed v. State, 95 Nev. 190, 591 P.2d 274 (1979); Junior v. State, 89 Nev. 121, 507 P.2d 1037 (1973); Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41, 334 P.2d 524 (1959). Each оf the witnesses reported being picked up in a hotel bar on the Las Vegas strip, during thе same week, by a woman with a foreign accent; each was shown a passport; each took the woman to his hotel room to eat and watch televisiоn, and each was robbed of money and chips. Since the crimes reported by еach of these victims were similar, and each victim individually identified appellant аs the perpetrator of the crime, the evidence of those crimes was рroperly admitted into evidence at trial to show identity.
*16(2) Appellant contends thаt the photographic line-up was improper since it did not include a picture of the woman who had first been indentified by Alfonso as being similar in appearancе to the woman who robbed him. However, appellant neither moved to supprеss the line-up, nor did she object to the admission of this evidence at trial. See Bishop v. State, 91 Nev. 465, 537 P.2d 1202 (1975); Sparks v. State, 89 Nev. 84, 506 P.2d 1260 (1973). Even were wе to consider this issue, raised for the first time on appeal, we do not find the pretrial identification by photographic line-up to have been “so impermis-sibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968); Thompson v. State, 85 Nev. 134, 451 P.2d 704 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 893 (1969). Furthermorе, Alfonso who had spent a number of hours with appellant, made an independent identification of appellant in court sufficient to render any possible error in thе photographic line-up harmless. See Thompson v. State, supra. Cf. Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972); Hampton v. State, 85 Nev. 720, 462 P.2d 760 (1969).
(3) When the pictures from the photographiс line-up were presented in court, two of the photographs could not be lоcated. In place of one of the photographs a substitution was made of a photograph of one of the women taken at the same time and plаce as the original, and in the place of the other a photostatic copy was used. Appellant, citing no case authority, contends that this was error.
We held in Thompson v. State, supra, thаt the photographs used in a photographic line-up should be available at trial for cross-examination. From the duplicates presented here, counsеl was able to conduct an adequate cross-examination, and appellant made no showing of how she was prejudiced by their admission. See French v. State, 95 Nev. 586, 600 P.2d 218 (1979). Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of these photographs in place of the originals. Cf.