WPC G$_-% $Uqx6/K"[,"ܝʖ\};id%dJU\C:cbe=U֎] CSx>/V [,|n <]x*3W!ZMf>a:(6nwE5)Jf@l4RRK\⍰|΁.mLꡠ&#`wm)8go0 &5p 9gV_* gSb=#=PI(0y#96[Ke*Yql^nؠ!Ifb;ip]X> q.5YBļKihWk1Y(LU2Y\33v#v*r݈o {RQ?$TھW4 o/B)>z8R4ls'T\Pwjd0'EuԒM[_ScEb#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   m   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularm:)L  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptsp' RA~1%3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8P0dd8         0  ! d(|3z$ !.8P0dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3z$ !.8P0dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8U(dd8     _   U(8#XXdd8@ttj;U(INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#U(j; #Ԉ      @  @` May2000Session @ X#XU( #U(XX# #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JERRYWAYNE_SOUTHERLAND_X#XU(  4 @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Obion_ԀCounty  ( @@No.8046WilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<o` A p  @@TTNo.W199901083CCAR3CDDecidedSeptember21,_2000_ e  AV) ` dE<0` A 1     X#XXX#TheDefendant,JerryWayne_Southerland_,wasfoundguiltybyan_Obion_ԀCountyjuryofaggravated &v  burglaryandtheft.Inthisappeal,theDefendantchallengesthetrialcourtsdecisiontoallowthe  \ incourtidentificationoftheDefendantbywitnessBrianStacks.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrial B court.#X#XXX#"##U(XX##X#XU( (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.     #U(X#:#X#X.U(RobertW.Wedemeyer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.SmithandJames p _Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr,JJ.,joined. V C.MichaelRobbins,Memphis,_Tennesseee_,JohnPalmer,_Dyersburg_,Tennessee,andJosephP. "r _Atnip_,DistrictPublicDefender,Dresden,Tennesseefortheappellant,JerryWayne_Southerland_. X PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,Peter $ _Coughlan_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,ThomasA.Thomas,DistrictAttorneyGeneralandJames   DavidKendall,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneralfortheappellee,StateofTennessee.  @@OO& OPINION #U(XX##X#XU( l!! #U(XX#R #X#XU(  X#XXX#  OnDecember13,1997,DonStacksandhiswifelefttheirhomein_Obion_ԀCountytogoto 8## Paducah,Kentucky.TheStacksfourteenyearoldson,BrianStacks(hereinafter Stacks),was $n$ supposedtobestayingathisoldersistershousewhilehisparentswereoutoftown.However, %T % StackswenthomeontheafternoonofDecember13,1997totakeashower.AttheDefendantstrial, %:!& Stackstestifiedconcerningtheeventsthattookplacewhilehewashomethatafternoon. & "'   AccordingtoStacks,aroundthreeoclockintheafternoononDecember13,1997,David (#) JonesparkedhistruckinStacksdrivewayandknockedonthefrontdoor.BecauseStackswas )$* supposedtobeathissistershouse,hedidnotanswerthedoor.Jonesleft,andafewminuteslater, h*%+ thephonerang.AlthoughStacksdidnotanswerthephone,hewasabletodeterminebyusing star N+&, 69"thatthecallcamefromanearbygasstation.Afterthecall,Jonesreturned,andthistimeStacks 4,'- sawthatRobbiePowersandtheDefendant,JerryWayne_Southerland_,werealsointhetruck.The -j(. threemengotoutofthetruckandknockedonthefrontdoor.Therewasnoanswer,sothemenwent  aroundtothebackofthehouse.Afterknockingonthebackdoor,thethreemenenteredtheStacks  homethroughthebackentrance.Onceinside,Jonespointedoutthelocationoftheguns.Stacks | sawwhatwashappeningandbegantoyell.TheDefendantquicklygrabbedtwoguns,andallthree b menleft. H   Aftertheburglary,Stacksrannextdoor,andhisneighborcalledthepolice.Stackstestified  d thathebelievedthathehadtoldthepolicethenamesofallthemeninvolvedintheburglary.  J However,thenotestakenbyOfficerRoyce_Aker_ԀaftertalkingtoStacksimmediatelyafterthe  0 burglarydonotindicatethatStacksnamedtheDefendantasoneofthethreeburglars.According    tothenotes,StacksdidnameDavidJonesanddescribedtwoothermen.      OnDecember23,1997,justtendaysaftertheburglary,Stackswaspresentatahearingfor x  DavidJonesandidentifiedtheDefendanttoJerry_Vasbinder_,acriminalinvestigatorandChief ^  Deputyfor_Obion_ԀCounty.Atthetimeoftheidentification,theDefendantwassittinginacrowded D  courtroom.Then,approximatelyoneweekbeforetheDefendantstrial,StackswasintheDistrict *z  AttorneysofficeandsawaphotographoftheDefendant.StacksagainidentifiedtheDefendantas ` oneofthecriminalsinvolvedintheburglary. F   TheDefendantarguesthatBrianStackstestimony,includingboththeincourtandoutof  courtidentifications,shouldbeexcludedfromtherecordbecausetheviewingoftheDefendants  photographontheDistrictAttorneysdeskwashighlysuggestiveandprejudicial.Asidefromthe  codefendantsinthiscase,Stackswastheonlymaterialwitnesstotestifyastotheidentificationof t theDefendant.Stacksidentificationtestimonyisessentialtothiscasebecauseacriminaldefendant Z cannotbeconvictedsolelyontheuncorroboratedtestimonyofanaccomplice.Statev.Caldwell, @ 977S.W.2d110,115(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);_Sherrill_Ԁv.State,321S.W.2d811,814(Tenn.1959). &v ThisCourtconcludesthatBrianStackstestimony,includinghisincourtidentificationofthe  \ Defendant,wasproperlyadmittedbythetrialcourt.Thereforethetestimonyofthecodefendants B wasadequatelycorroborated,andtheevidenceattrialwassufficientbeyondareasonabledoubtto ( convicttheDefendant.    Apretrialidentificationviolatesdueprocesswhenitissosuggestivethatitgivesriseto a   verysubstantiallikelihoodofirreparablemisidentification.Statev._Strickland_,885S.W.2d85, p!  88(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(quotingSimmonsv.UnitedStates,390U.S.377,384(1968)).As V"! such,thefocusoftheinquiryisthereliabilityoftheidentificationratherthanthesuggestivenature <#" oftheprocedure.Statev._Philpott_,882S.W.2d394,400(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Outofcourtand "$r# incourtidentificationsmaystillbeadmissibleevenwhenpretrialidentificationproceduresare %X $ foundtobesuggestive.Id.at400.Indeterminingtheeffecttheprocedurehadonthereliabilityof %>!% theidentification,eachcasemustbeconsideredonitsownfacts.Simmons,390U.S.at384. &$"&   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthassetforthafivefactoranalysisfordeterminingwhether (#( asuggestiveidentificationmaybeadmittedintoevidence: )$) 8  [1]theopportunityofthewitnesstoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime,[2] l*%* thewitnessdegreeofattention[atthetimeofthecrime],[3]theaccuracyofthe R+&+ witnesspriordescriptionofthecriminal,[4]thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedby 8,', thewitnessattheconfrontation,and[5]thelengthoftimebetweenthecrimeandthe  confrontation.   _____Neil_Ԁv._Biggers_,409U.S.188,199200(1972);seealso_Philpott_,882S.W.2dat400. Thedegree | ofreliabilityoftheidentification,asindicatedbythesefactors,shouldbeassessedinlightofthe b suggestivenessoftheidentificationprocedureandthetotalityofthecircumstancestodetermine H whetheraviolationofdueprocesshasoccurred._Strickland_,885S.W.2dat88.Dueprocessis . ~ violatedwherethesuggestivenessoftheidentificationprocesscreatesthelikelihoodof  d misidentification.Neil,409U.S.at198.  J   Regardingthereliabilityoftheidentificationinthiscase,Stackshadampleopportunityto    viewtheoffenderduringtheburglary.Stackstestifiedthathewasinthehouseforthedurationof    theburglaryandthathisattentionwasfocusedonthecriminalstheentiretime.Infact,itwasonly   whenStacksbegantoscreamthattheoffendersleftthehouse.Attrial,Stacksadamantlymaintained x  thattheDefendantwasoneofthepersonsinvolvedintheburglary.Stackstestifiedthathehad ^  knowntheDefendantforapproximatelysixmonthspriortotheburglary.Thus,theonlyfactorthat D  weighsagainstthereliabilityoftheidentificationistheaccuracyofStackspriordescriptionofthe *z  criminals,specificallythedescriptionhegaveofficersimmediatelyafterthecrime.Accordingto ` theinvestigatingofficer,StacksnevermentionedtheDefendantbynameordescriptionwhen F questionedonthenightoftheburglary.StacksthoughthehadnamedtheDefendantalongwith , DavidJonesandRobbiePowers.However,consideringtheshortdurationoftheinterview,aswell  astheageandemotionalstateoftheyoungwitness,itisunderstandablewhyStacksmayhavefailed  tonametheDefendant.Stackshasalwaysmaintainedthattherewerethreemeninvolvedinthe  burglaryandhasnevergivenacontradictorydescriptionoftheDefendant. t   Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,weconcludethatnosubstantiallikelihoodofirreparable @ misidentificationoccurredinthiscase.#X#XXX# #X#XXX##U(XX# #X#XU(ԀStacksincourtidentificationoftheDefendantwasnotthe &v resultofasuggestivepretrialidentificationprocedureandthereforewassufficientlyreliable.  \ Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. B #X#XXX#}0##U(XX#0#X#XU(   `     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE