State v. Rives

“Where an eyewitness has been exposed to suggestive police procedures, the trial court has a ‘heightened role as an evidentiary gatekeeper because “traditional” methods of testimony reliability–like cross-examination–can be ineffective at discrediting unreliable or inaccurate eyewitness identification evidence.’” Lawson/James, 352 Or. 724, 758, 291 P.3d 673, 694-95 (2012).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for third-degree assault. Defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the victim’s out-of-court eyewitness identification of him arguing that the identification procedures used raised serious questions about the reliability of the identification. Defendant asserted that the suggestive nature of the photo lineup rendered the identification unreliable, and thus inadmissible under OEC 403.  In response, the State argued that the eyewitness identification was sufficiently reliable to allow it into evidence under OEC 403. “Where an eyewitness has been exposed to suggestive police procedures, the trial court has a ‘heightened role as an evidentiary gatekeeper because “traditional” methods of testimony reliability–like cross-examination–can be ineffective at discrediting unreliable or inaccurate eyewitness identification evidence.’” Lawson/James, 352 Or. 724, 758, 291 P.3d 673, 694-95 (2012). The Court found that the trial court did not err in its conclusion that defendant had failed to demonstrate that the eyewitness identification should have been excluded under OEC 403. The Court held that nothing in Haugen called into question the Court’s conclusion in Rives I that the State satisfied its burden to show a “minimum baseline reliability.” Affirmed.