State v. Cantrell
| Decision Date | 07 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42301,42301 |
| Citation | 500 P.2d 777,81 Wn.2d 213 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Floyd CANTRELL, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Oldfield & Manger, Thomas H. Oldfield, Tacoma, for petitioner.
Joseph D. Mladinov, Sp. Counsel to Pros. Atty., Pierce County, Tacoma for respondent.
Defendant (appellant) appeals from a judgment based upon a jury conviction of robbery, challenging the constitutional validity of certain pretrial identification procedures.
Defendant was charged with and convicted of robbery in Pierce County Superior Court. The filing of the information against him and the subsequent conviction of robbery were to a considerable extent based upon a photographic identification of him by his victim. The victim, Gordon Martin was robbed on November 3, 1970, in a Tacoma apartment. Some time after Mr. Martin reported the robbery to the police, he was contacted by a detective, told that two men were being held at the time, and was shown several photographs of possible suspects, from which he selected a photograph of defendant Cantrell. The record reveals some uncertainty as to the exact circumstances of this identification. The victim testified at trial that he was shown a dozen or so photographs, and that they were laid out in a row on a table. The detective testified that he handed the victim five photographs, and that he handed them to him in a bundle. The victim testified that there was no hesitation in selecting the picture. The detective testified that the victim studied the photographs a little while, or for a few minutes, before selecting any photogaphs.
At trial, defendant's motion to suppress these photographs and any identification arising from them was denied. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. State v. Cantrell, 6 Wash.App. 1004 (1971). We granted defendant's petition for review for the purpose of resolving an asserted conflict between the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, and the decisions of that court in State v. Ferguson, 3 Wash.App. 898, 479 P.2d 114 (1970), and State v. Lane, 4 Wash.App. 745, 484 P.2d 432 (1971), and to clarify the law of this state concerning the constitutional requisites of photographic identification procedures.
In State v. Nettles, Wash., 500 P.2d 752 (1972), we concluded that a photographic identification procedure was not a critical stage of the criminal process and therefore did not rise right to counsel issues under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We also held that the validity and reliability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lutz
...597, 185 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Ct.App.1971); People v. McCoy, 71 Misc.2d 381, 337 N.Y.S.2d 49, 50 (Sup.Ct.1972); State v. Cantrell, 81 Wash.2d 213, 500 P.2d 777, 778 (Sup.Ct.1972). It is to be noted in this regard that the due process issue of impermissibly suggestive procedures does not pertain......
-
State v. Wait, 1462--I
...to evaluate the reliability of identification testimony. See State v. Nettles, 81 Wash.2d 205, 500 P.2d 752 (1972); State v. Cantrell, 81 Wash.2d 213, 500 P.2d 777 (1972). Appellant also assigns error to the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal ......
-
Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Wiscomb
... ... This case presents a question the appellate courts have not yet directly addressed in this state: Is the family or household exclusion clause void because it violates public policy? ... The family exclusion clause and the common ... ...
-
State v. Thomas
...aspects of suggestion. The evidence is that her recognition of the picture of the defendant came from her own mind. State v. Cantrell,81 Wash.2d 213, 500 P.2d 777 (1972); State v. Nettles, 81 Wash.2d 205, 500 P.2d 752 (1972); State v. Moore, 7 Wash.App. 1, 496 P.2d 983, 499 P.2d 16 (1972); ......