WPC\) U:V % 0w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1uU, 0dJ BU,U *B)!DCJ AM D3  0@~\Lv~f v! AO'( 0D( D/) B?),  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  _D`UaUbDcbdfUgDhӀrD 3|xr((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7|XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G'dxd  !  #d#&    ! \RA'\#d#   &   YYY FILED&XJune20,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#&     \RA'\#d#   &\RA'\7|XXdd7     Wenotethattheadmissibilityofidentificationevidenceisadispositiveissueinthiscaseduetothelackofothersufficientevidenceconnectingtheappellantwiththecommissionoftheoffense.("$     R !#d#&     \RA'\#d#   &     InMansonv.Brathwaite,theSupremeCourtnotedthat,shortofacaseinwhichthereisasubstantiallikelihoodofirreparablemisidentification,courtsshould relyuponthegoodsenseandjudgmentofAmericanjuries,forevidencewithsomeelementofuntrustworthinessiscustomarygristforthejurymill.Juriesarenotsosusceptiblethattheycannotmeasureintelligentlytheweightofidentificationtestimonythathassomequestionablefeature.432U.S.98,116,97S.Ct.2243,2254(1977). B !#d#&     \RA'\#d#   &     Theappellantalsoarguesthattheappellantwasnotsufficientlysimilarinphysicalappearancetotheothermenincludedinthephotographicarray.Thiscourthasobserved:8 Whereacriminaldefendantsphotographisinalineupofotherphotographs,courts,indeterminingsuggestiveness,looktowhetherthepoliceattemptedtoinfluencethewitness;whetherthephotographrecursinthegroup;thenumberofphotographs;andthemannerofselection.Thedisparityinappearanceamongthepersonsdepictedisalsoamajorconsideration,althoughitisrecognizedthatthereisnorequirementthatthepersonsbeidentical.Statev.Miller,No.02C019107CC00162(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1992)(citationomitted).Wesimplynotethatanysuggestivenessinthiscasewasinsufficienttounderminethereliabilityoftheidentification. Theidentificationmaystandeventhoughtheprocedureemployedmayhaveinsomerespectsfallenshortoftheideal,providingthattheprocedurewhenviewedinthetotalityofitsowncircumstancesmeetsthefundamentaltestoffairness.UnitedStatesv.Cooper,472F.2d64,66(5thCir.),cert.denied,414U.S.840,94S.Ct.96(1973).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &%%Xd&#%%Xd#&     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ MARCHSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.01C019508CC00253 Appellee   )     ) COFFEECOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.GeraldL.Ewell,Sr.,Judge L)+(;+'h|B`   `LߛCECILROBERTS ,   )     ) (IndecentExposure) Appellant   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:L.CraigJohnson    CharlesW.BursonParsons,Nichols&Johnson  AttorneyGeneralandReporter101WestMainStreet Manchester,TN37355   RobinL.Harris      AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                C.MichaelLayne      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      KennethShelton      Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      Manchester,TN37355      OPINIONFILED:򀀀̜AFFIRMED̛ DavidG.Hayes JudgeӜ@ OPINION  Theappellant,CecilRoberts,appealsfromajudgmentofconvictionenteredbytheCircuitCourtofCoffeeCounty.Theappellantpledguiltytoonecountofindecentexposure,aclassBmisdemeanor.Thetrialcourtsentencedtheappellanttosixmonthsincarcerationinthecountyjail.Thecourtthenorderedtheappellanttoserve15daysofhissentenceinthecountyjailandthebalanceonprobation.Asaconditionofhisplea,theappellantreservedtherighttoappealasacertifiedquestionoflawthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotiontosuppressidentificationevidence.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(b);Tenn.R.Crim.P.37(b). ,   ̛̜@ FACTUALBACKGROUND  OntheafternoonofJanuary4,1994,DebraSimmonswasenroutetoadaycarecentertopickupherson.AnothervehiclepulledupbesideMs.Simmons.Simmonswasabletoclearlyseethedriveroftheothervehicle.Thedriverofthevehicle,lateridentifiedastheappellant,begantowaveatMs.Simmons.Atthesuppressionhearing,Simmonsdescribedtheappellantswavingasa nicesortofgesture.Minuteslater,assheexitedthedaycarecenterwithherson,Simmonsnoticedtheappellantscarparkedbehindhercar.Atthispoint,theappellantaskedSimmonstoapproachhiscar.Theappellantremainedseatedinhiscar.WhenSimmonsdrewnear,theappellant,inextremelylewdandoffensiveterms,askedthatsheperformoralsexonhim.Theappellantsgenitalswereexposed.Simmonsrespondedangrilyandthenreturnedtohervehicle. TheincidentwasreportedtotheManchesterPoliceDepartmentthefollowingday.Simmonsinformedthepolicethattheperpetratorhadbeenwearingbrowncoverallsandatwotonedhatonwhichwasinscribed ManchesterWaterandSewerDepartment.Shefurtherdescribedtheperpetratoras blond[with]facialhair,mustache,beard,and...redfacedwhichappearedhighbloodpressuretype[,]and stockybuilt.DetectiveMarkYother,theinvestigatorinthiscase,testifiedatthesuppressionhearingthathewasfamiliarwiththeappellantpriortothisincident.HestatedthatMs.Simmonsdescriptionwas veryaccurate,andthatheimmediatelyrecognizedtheappellantfromSimmonssdescriptionoftheappellantandtheappellantscar. OnJanuary12,1994,Simmonswasshownaphotographiclineupconsistingofsixwhitemales.Allsixhadfacialhairandallbutonewerewearingballcaps.YothertestifiedthatthepolicedidnotinformSimmonsthattheywereawareofasuspectorthatasuspectwasincludedinthearray.Nevertheless,Simmonsimmediatelyidentifiedtheappellant.Moreover,sheindicatedthatshewas 100percentcertainthattheappellantsphotographwasthecorrectone.TherecorddoesreflectthattheappellantwastheonlypersoninthephotographicarraywhowaswearingaManchesterWaterandSewerDepartmentballcap.However,atthesuppressionhearing,Simmonsstatedthatheridentificationwasbasedupontheappellantsfacialfeaturesandnotuponthelogoonhisballcap.Indeed,sheassertedthatshe didntfocusonhisclothingatall. Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontosuppressSimmonsidentificationoftheappellant.Thetrialcourtobserved:8 BalancingthedegreeofreliabilitydeterminedbytheapplicationoftheBiggersfactorscitedintheMeekscaseagainstthecorruptingeffectofthesuggestiveidentification,theCourtconcludesthatdespiteasuggestiveidentificationproceduretheidentificationwasbasedonthevictimsobservationatthetimeoftheincidentandnotinducedbytheconductoftheinvestigativeprocedureandconcludesthereforethattheidentificationtestimonymaybeadmittedinCourt.Moreover,thecourtfoundthateveniftheidentificationwasinadmissible, thecircumstances[ofthiscase]donotindicatethatthereisasubstantiallikelihoodof[irreparable]misidentification.@ ANALYSIS ` XB''X TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasadoptedthestandardfordeterminingtheadmissibilityofidentificationevidencesetforthbytheUnitesStatesSupremeCourtinalineofcases,includingUnitedStatesv.Wade,388U.S.218,87S.Ct.1926(1967),Gilbertv.California,388U.S.263,87S.Ct.1951(1967),Stovallv.Denno,388U.S.293,87S.Ct.1967(1967),andNeilv.Biggers,409U.S.188,93S.Ct.375(1972).SeeBennettv.State,530S.W.2d511,512515(Tenn.1975);Sloanv.State,584S.W.2d461,466470(Tenn.Crim.App.1978);Rippyv.State,550S.W.2d636,639640(Tenn.Crim.App.1977).Aviolationofdueprocesshasoccurredifthecourtfindsthattheidentificationprocedurewassosuggestiveastogiverisetoaverysubstantiallikelihoodofirreparablemisidentification.Proctorv.State,565S.W.2d909,911912(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1978). .   ׀ [R]eliabilityisthelinchpinindeterminingtheadmissibilityofidentificationtestimony[pursuanttoprinciplesofdueprocess].Manson,432U.S.at114,97S.Ct.at2253.Afindingthatthepretrialidentificationwasunreliablewillalsorequiretheexclusionofasubsequentincourtidentificationbythesamewitness.Id.SeealsoStatev.Philpott,882    S.W.2d394,400(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1994);Statev.Davis,872S.W.2d950,956(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993);Sloan,584S.W.2dat470.Thecourtmustviewthetotalityofthecircumstances.Proctor,565S.W.2dat911912.InBiggers,theSupremeCourtannouncedfactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetheraviolationofdueprocesshasoccurred:8 1.8 theopportunityofthewitnesstoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime;8 2.8 thewitnessdegreeofattentionatthetimeofthecrime;8 3.8 theaccuracyofherpriordescriptionofthecriminal;8 4. thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedattheconfrontation;and8 5.8 thetimeelapsedbetweenthecrimeandtheconfrontation.409U.S.at199200,93S.Ct.at382.SeealsoPhilpott,882S.W.2dat400.̜ Initially,wenotethatthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactfollowingasuppressionhearingareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.Davis,872S.W.2dat956.Intheinstantcase,therecordclearlysupportsthetrialcourtsfindings.Althoughtheidentificationprocedurewassuggestive,Ms.Simmonshadtwoseparateopportunitiestoviewtheappellantinthedaylight;shetestifiedthat,onthesecondoccasion,herfullattentionwasfocusedontheappellant;shegavea veryaccuratedescriptionoftheappellanttothepolice;andshewas 100percentcertainofheridentificationoftheappellantonlyeightdaysafterthecommissionoftheoffense.Finally,itisapparentfromtherecordthatSimmonsdidnotidentifytheappellantonthebasisofhishat. /   כWeconcludethattheidentificationoftheappellantwasreliable.̛ Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofconviction.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________JERRYL.SMITH,Judge_______________________________WILLIAMS.RUSSELL,SpecialJudge