State v. Hunt
Decision Date | 30 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 86,969,86,969 |
Citation | 69 P.3d 571,275 Kan. 811 |
Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CEDRIC E. HUNT, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Korey A. Kaul, assistant appellate defender, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nola Foulston, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Cedric E. Hunt was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. In this direct appeal, Hunt challenges the identification procedure which resulted in his arrest, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence which resulted in his conviction. He also objects to the trial court not instructing the jury on theft as a lesser included offense.
A Coastal Mart convenience store was robbed by an individual with a bandana tied over the lower half of his face. The robber pulled his shirt sleeve down over his hand and pointed that hand at the clerk, which led the clerk to believe the man was armed. The clerk gave the robber five $20 bills. The robber drove away in a small, blue, four-door vehicle that did not have a license tag.
The clerk immediately called the Wichita police department, who responded immediately and dispatched a description of the vehicle and the robber. Within minutes of receiving the information, an Andover police officer observed a vehicle matching the description being driven by a man also matching the description given by the clerk. The Andover officer followed the vehicle until it stopped and then arrested the driver, Hunt.
The Andover officer then radioed the Wichita police, who drove the store clerk to Andover. The clerk immediately identified Hunt as the robber and also identified the vehicle as the one used in the robbery.
Hunt failed to object to the admission of the out-of-court identification at trial. Ordinarily, a defendant must object to the admission of the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal. State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 349, 22 P.3d 151 (2001).
We have recognized three exceptions to the rule precluding review when there is a failure to properly raise the issue at trial:
State v. Mincey, 265 Kan. 257, 267, 963 P.2d 403 (1998).
We will analyze the issue raised in order to serve the ends of justice or to prevent a denial of a fundamental right.
The question of whether an eyewitness identification was unnecessarily suggestive in violation of a defendant's right to due process is a mixed question of law and fact. This court reviews the factual basis of the district court's decision using a substantial competent evidence standard, but uses a de novo standard to review the legal conclusions drawn from those facts. See State v. Shumway, 30 Kan. App. 2d 836, Syl. ¶ 4, 50 P.3d 89 (2002).
The question of the unreliability of eyewitness identification has long been a concern for judges of all levels. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 87 S. Ct. 1926 (1967), stated:
Indeed, this court, in State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 392, 635 P.2d 1236 (1981), noted:
Justice Prager, writing for this court in Warren, stated:
The problems inherent in any identification procedure are compounded when that procedure is a "show-up." A "show-up" is essentially one person, almost always in custody, sometimes in handcuffs, being identified by an individual who usually was the victim of a crime a short time before the identification. That was the situation in this case.
The critical element of the analysis is the reliability of the identification. Shumway, 30 Kan. App. 2d 836, Syl. ¶ 5. The analysis requires two steps. First, the court must determine whether the procedure used to elicit the eyewitness identification was unnecessarily suggestive. If the procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, the court continues with the second step of the analysis, evaluating the reliability of the identification under the totality of the circumstances. If there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification, the identification must be excluded from evidence. Shumway, 30 Kan. App. 2d 836, Syl. ¶ 6.
Kansas has adopted the five factors established by the United States Supreme Court for assessing the reliability of pretrial identifications:
"`[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness `prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.'" Shumway, 30 Kan. App. 2d at 844 (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, 93 S. Ct. 375 [1972]).
The Biggers approach has been the law in Kansas and in the majority of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harris
...demonstrated by the eyewitness is invariably an indicator of the accuracy of the identification. See id. ; see also State v. Hunt , 275 Kan. 811, 818, 69 P.3d 571 (2003) (adopting Ramirez framework).28 Other state courts have concluded that any identification that is the result of an unnece......
-
State v. Reid, No. 93,646.
...was improperly given because the seven factors listed there are not the same as those adopted by this court in State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 817-18, 69 P.3d 571 (2003). Because Reid did not object to this instruction at the trial court, he asserts that this court should only review the claim......
-
State v. Cruz, 104,847.
...being identified “by an individual who usually was the victim of a crime a short time before the identification.” State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 815, 69 P.3d 571 (2003); see also Alires, 246 Kan. at 636, 640–41, 792 P.2d 1019 (discussing show-up identification caselaw even though witness was ......
-
State v. Shields
...to eyewitness identification" those in the legal profession know "that such identification is often unreliable." State v. Hunt , 275 Kan. 811, 818, 69 P.3d 571 (2003). A properly worded cautionary instruction alleviates some of that concern by providing the jury with factors to consider whe......
-
Chapter 3 Eyewitness Identification
...on the admissibility of eyewitness identification testimony.35 See, e.g., State v. Almaraz, 301 P.3d 242 (Ida. 2013); State v. Hunt, 69 P.3d 571 (Kan. 2003); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 775 (Utah 1991). c. Jury Instructions Various state court rulings have recognized that jury instructions m......
-
Fresh Eyes: Young v. State's New Eyewitness Identification Test and Prospects for Alaska and Beyond
...and revisiting Brathwaite and Biggers in light of recent scientific evidence which is "now impossible . . . to ignore"); State v. Hunt, 69 P.3d 571, 576 (Kan. 2003) (announcing a "refinement" of the federal due process test using five factors adopted in Ramirez); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d ......
-
Reforming Eyewitness Identification Law and Practices to Protect the Innocent
...an ordinary one in the mind of an observer and whether the race of the actor was the same as the race of the observer]; Kansas v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 69 P.3d 571, 576 (2003) [refines reliability factors to use those found in Utah v. Ramirez); Wisconsin v. Dubose, 285 Wis. 2d 143, 148, 699 N......
-
Reforming the law on show-up identifications.
...374 (1998)). (62) See State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991). (63) Id. at 782. (64) Id. at 783. (65) Id. at 784. (66) State v. Hunt, 69 P.3d 571, 576 (Kan. (67) See, e.g., Michael D. Cicchini, Judicial (In)Discretion: How Courts Circumvent the Confrontation Clause Under Crawford and Dav......