Lee v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 82S00-8611-CR-985,82S00-8611-CR-985 |
| Parties | Michael E. LEE, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
David M. Shaw, Mitchell, Staser & Shaw, Evansville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Michael E. Lee was tried before a jury and convicted of two counts of forgery, a class C felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-43-5-2 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The jury also determined that he was an habitual offender, Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-8 (Burns 1985 Repl.). The trial judge sentenced Lee to thirty-two years imprisonment.
On direct appeal, Lee raises three issues:
1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting an impermissibly suggestive photographic line-up;
2) Whether the trial court erred in admitting improperly certified habitual offender documents, and
3) Whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to identify Lee as the person convicted of a prior felony when the identification was assisted by a photograph not in evidence.
The evidence at trial showed that Lee twice attempted to cash stolen and forged checks at two Evansville grocery stores. Clerks from both stores identified Lee from a photographic line-up and later in court as the person who attempted to cash the checks.
Before trial, Lee moved to suppress the witnesses' identification, arguing that it was based on an unduly suggestive array of photographs. The trial court denied the motion. Both witnesses identified Lee in court and testified about their earlier identification of his photograph without objection. When the State offered the array of photographs, Lee objected based on his earlier motion to suppress. The objection was overruled and the photographs were admitted.
The State correctly argues that Lee has waived any error in his identification. Two witnesses identified Lee as the perpetrator without objection. By failing to object to that in-court identification and the testimony about the photographic line-up, Lee afforded the trial judge no opportunity to reconsider his ruling on the motion to suppress. The later admission of the photographic array was merely cumulative.
In any event, an objection would have been unavailing. "A photographic array is impermissibly suggestive when it raises a substantial likelihood of misidentification given the totality of the circumstances." Dumbsky v. State (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 1274, 1277. This line-up consists of photographs of seven black males, all of similar age and general appearance. Lee points to the fact that the subjects of the other photographs are more slightly built than he. Given that Lee stands six feet three inches and weighs 272 pounds, the Evansville Police Department would find it a difficult task to assemble subjects any more similar in appearance than the ones contained in this array. Additionally, the photographs depict only the head and shoulders of the subjects. From this view, the differences in height and weight are not obvious.
Lee also argues that the contrast in tone makes his picture appear darker than the others, rendering the array impermissibly suggestive. Each photograph in the array varies slightly in tone from the others; we cannot say that this variance was conducive to a misidentification.
Finally, Lee contends that his darker complexion draws undue attention to his picture. It is true that some of the photographs depict individuals with lighter complexions. As a practical matter, a photographic array cannot contain photographs of individuals identical in appearance. This line-up contains photographs of individuals meeting the same general description. It is not impermissibly suggestive and conducive to a mistaken identification.
For the first time, appellant argues in his brief that the trial court improperly admitted the array because the photographs were obviously mug shots and the jury could infer from them his prior criminal history. While this allegation is also waived because Lee did not object at trial on this basis, such an objection would have been unsuccessful. Though the pictures do depict the traditional frontal and profile views common to mug shots, the State sought to minimize this effect. The identification information was covered with tape and the background of the photographs does not indicate that the individuals were incarcerated. See Ashley v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 768. The court properly admitted the photographs.
To prove that Lee was an habitual offender, the State offered exhibits L-1 and L-2, court records showing that Lee pled guilty to forgery and was sentenced on that conviction in 1977,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. Duckworth
...circumstances to determine whether the procedures used gave rise to the likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Lee v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 146, 147. We have carefully reviewed the testimony of the victims and conclude that each had sufficient opportunity to view the criminal......
-
Brooks v. State
...Little v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 677, or by the physical constitution of the photo array or corporeal lineup, see Lee v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 146; Little, 475 N.E.2d 677. If the reviewing court finds that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the pre-trial confront......
-
Madden v. State
...was offered at trial, appellant made no objection. Failure to object at that time constituted a waiver of the issue. Lee v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 146. Notwithstanding the waiver, when we examine the evidence in this case, it indicates that the victim was shown six photographs of bl......
-
Harris v. State
...not drawn in question and the issue was not preserved for appeal. Madden v. State (1990), Ind., 549 N.E.2d 1030, 1032; Lee v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 146, 147. Nonetheless, appellant claims that the alleged due process violations rise to the level of fundamental error and, therefore,......