Reaves v. State, F-81-368
| Decision Date | 05 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. F-81-368,F-81-368 |
| Citation | 649 P.2d 777 |
| Parties | Rodger Alan REAVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Roger Alan Reaves, appellant, was convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CRF-80-204. The appellant waived a jury trial. He was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment and appeals. REVERSED and REMANDED.
E. Terrill Corley, Tulsa, for appellant.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Deputy Chief, Crim. Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
The appellant was charged with Burglary in the Second Degree in Tulsa County District Court. The appellant waived a jury trial. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to five (5) years imprisonment.
The sole issue is whether the pretrial identification procedures were impermissively suggestive as to taint the in-court identification in violation of the appellant's due process rights.
Reaves asserts that the photographic identification procedure was impermissively suggestive for several reasons. He contends: (1) that a comment by the police officer after the victim had only tentatively identified his picture was unnecessarily suggestive, (2) that the repeated showing of the pictures was prejudicial, and (3) that the other persons depicted in the photographic display did not even remotely possess the same physical characteristics as the appellant.
On December 22, 1979, Alvin Rhodes returned to his apartment and noticed his door was ajar. As he attempted to push the door open someone from inside his apartment grabbed him. A struggle ensued and Rhodes was hit in the head with a pry bar. Rhodes managed to gain possession of the pry bar and swung it at his assailant, but missed. At this time, a second assailant emerged from the apartment. This second assailant was later identified as Rodger Reaves. He pointed a gun at Rhodes and ordered him to drop the pry bar. Rodger Reaves allegedly handed the pistol to his accomplice who ordered Rhodes inside the apartment. Once inside, Rhodes grabbed the pistol, but was unable to overpower his assailants. During the scuffle that ensued, Rhodes was severely beaten up by the two assailants.
At gunpoint, Rhodes, who was at this time in a semi-conscious state, was ordered into the bathroom where he was robbed of his wallet. The assailants then fled and Rhodes managed to contact the police. He was later taken to the hospital where he stayed for approximately ten days recovering from severe body and facial injuries.
On December 26, 1979, while the victim was in the hospital, Detective Campbell showed Rhodes a photographic display consisting of nine photographs. Rhodes carefully looked through the photographs several times. He tentatively picked out two photographs of his alleged assailants, Rodger Reaves and his brother, Stephen Reaves. He informed the detective that he was not positive they were his assailants. Detective Campbell determined this initial identification by Rhodes of the suspects was insufficient to make an arrest.
After the victim had tentatively identified his assailants, Detective Campbell informed him that the two guys were brothers. Campbell also informed Rhodes that "one of the dudes was bad." Rhodes then asked Campbell whether they were capable of murdering someone. Campbell responded that they were.
When Rhodes was released from the hospital, Detective Campbell went to his apartment and showed him the two pictures he had tentatively identified in the hospital. This time Rhodes positively identified Rodger Reaves and Steve Reaves. Rhodes stated that he was sure they were the two assailants. Rhodes was shown the original stack of nine photographs a third time while in the presence of the assistant district attorney. Placed in this stack of photographs was an additional picture of Rodger Reaves. This second picture was a more recent photograph of Reaves, depicting him as having gained weight. Once again, immediately prior to the preliminary hearing, Rhodes was shown the two photographs of Rodger Reaves.
In determining whether a photographic showup conforms with constitutional principles the standard "is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). Pretrial photographic identifications will be set aside only if the photographic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bland, No. 31437-1-II (WA 5/17/2005), 31437-1-II
...and his twin brother and being unable to distinguish them in a first photo array), review denied, 299 Md. 136 (1984); Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) (citing several overly suggestive 15. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995) (to show ineffect......
-
Klinekole v. State
...confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation." Id. 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253. See also Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777, 780 (Okl.Cr.1982). P.C.'s opportunity to view her assailant at the time of the attack was poor. She testified at preliminary hearing that "the......
-
Rogers v. State
...of irreparable misidentification. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Also see Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777 (Okl.Cr.1979). We find that the photographic identification, in the instant case, was not impermissibly suggestive and appellant was not den......
-
Leigh v. State
... ... Although participants in pretrial photo displays should possess the same general physical characteristics as the accused, see Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777 (Okl.Cr.1982); and Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 780 (Okl.Cr.1982), substantial compliance with physical similarity guidelines ... ...