Kizer v. State

Decision Date24 October 1979
Docket NumberNo. 3-179A23,3-179A23
Citation182 Ind.App. 525,395 N.E.2d 841
PartiesAlbert J. KIZER, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Joseph A. Williams, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

STATON, Judge.

Albert J. Kizer was charged and convicted of the crime of robbery, a Class C felony. 1 He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of five years.

On appeal, Kizer raises four issues for our review:

(1) Did the trial court err in allowing into evidence the identification testimony of two witnesses for the State?

(2) Is the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's judgment?

(3) Was it error to allow the investigating officer to remain in the courtroom although a separation of witnesses had been ordered?

(4) Was Kizer's incriminating statement rendered inadmissible due to an illegal arrest and promises of leniency by police?

We affirm.

The following facts are relevant to our disposition of the case. On the morning of November 28, 1977, Patricia (Ryan) Northrup was robbed while in her home with her young daughter. Shortly before the robbery occurred, Kay Gastright, a neighbor of Mrs. Northrup, had talked with a man on her front porch and had later seen him in a nearby alley. On December 15, 1977, the police visited the Northrup home to show Mrs. Northrup and Ms. Gastright eight photographs of black males. The photographs generally resembled the man described by both women. Both women separately identified Kizer as the man they had seen that morning in November.

Kizer was arrested on December 15, 1977 and taken to the police station. After being advised of his rights, he stated that he understood them and signed an Advice of Rights form and a Waiver of Rights provision. Kizer then gave a statement to police which implicated him in the robbery of Mrs. Northrup.

Kizer contends that the trial court erred when it allowed Mrs. Northrup and Ms. Gastright to identify him in court after the police used an allegedly suggestive pre-trial photographic display.

Suppression of identification evidence is necessary only when the pre-trial procedure utilized is unnecessarily suggestive. Whitt v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 211, 361 N.E.2d 913. Our Supreme Court in Popplewell v. State (1978), Ind., 381 N.E.2d 79, 81 stated that:

"(C)onvictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pre-trial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."

To determine whether a pre-trial identification procedure has been conducted in an impermissibly suggestive manner, we look to the "totality of the circumstances." Hill v. State (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 889.

There is scant evidence in the record to indicate that the photographic display, presented to Mrs. Northrup and Ms. Gastright on December 15, was impermissibly suggestive. The women were separated and each was shown eight photographs of black males. The photographs were similar to the description of the man seen by both women. When the pictures were presented to the two women, the police merely asked them to examine the photographs. They did not indicate that Kizer was one of the men pictured, nor did they indicate that one of the pictures should be selected. We conclude that the photographic identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.

Even if the earlier photographic identification had been conducted in a suggestive manner, an in-court identification would have been proper if an "independent basis" could have been established. Eckman v. State (1979), Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 956. The "totality of the circumstances" standard is utilized in determining whether an independent basis for an in-court identification exists. Eckman, supra. Factors to be evaluated include: an opportunity for the witness to have observed the perpetrator of the crime at the time of its occurrence, the lighting conditions at that time, the distance of the witness from the perpetrator, the capacity of the witness for observation, and the opportunity of the witness to observe particular characteristics of the perpetrator. Eckman, supra.

The record shows that Ms. Gastright talked with Kizer for about five minutes through a glass door on her front porch. She testified that she was able to see him clearly. Mrs. Northrup, the victim of the crime, testified that she observed Kizer from a close range under good lighting conditions. In fact, she had ample opportunity to study him closely as he had his hands on her throat while threatening to kill her. We conclude that there is sufficient basis, independent of the pre-trial identification, to allow the in-court identification of Kizer.

Kizer urges us to find that the trial court's judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence to prove that Kizer was the person who committed the robbery.

When a question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised, this Court will consider only that evidence which is most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value which would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of each element of the offense, the judgment must be affirmed. Finch v. State (1978), Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 990. This Court will neither...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bottoms v. B & M Coal Corp., 1-379A63
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 4, 1980
    ...the officer were sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent man in believing the arrestee was committing an illegal act. Kizer v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 841. The officers unequivocally testified they observed the convoys arrive, men leave their vehicles and extensively vandalize......
  • Rutledge v. State, 3-383A60
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 24, 1983
    ...at the store on June 13, 1982. The separation of witnesses rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Kizer v. State (1979), Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 841, 844. Our Supreme Court has held that it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to permit the investigating officer to ......
  • Bennett v. State, 3-880A229
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 26, 1981
    ...rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Popplewell v. State (1978), Ind., 381 N.E.2d 79; Kizer v. State (1979), Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 841. We will look to the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether a pre-trial identification procedure has been co......
  • Hart v. State, 3-480A106
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...manner, we will look to the "totality of the circumstances." Hill v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 411, 370 N.E.2d 889; Kizer v. State (1979), Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 841. Jackson was shown seven pictures of white males between 17 and 25 years of age. All the men portrayed had shoulder length light b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT