Harrison v. State

In Harrison v. State, 276 Ark. 469, 637 S.W.2d 549 (1982), when the victim was shown the suspect in custody shortly after she was attacked, she was unable to identify the suspect as her assailant. Nevertheless, the supreme court found the subsequent in-court identification to be reliable, and stated: On appellate review, a trial court's decision on the admissibility of an identification should not be reversed unless, viewing the totality of the circumstances, it is clearly erroneous. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980); Hinton v. State, 260 Ark. 42, 537 S.W.2d 800 (1976). In James & Elliot v. State, 270 Ark. 596, 605 S.W.2d 448 (1980), we stated at 600: It is the likelihood of misidentification that taints the out of court identification process. In determining whether an in-court identification is tainted by pretrial occurrences, we consider the totality of the circumstances. In doing so, we consider the opportunity of the identifying witness to observe the accused at the time of the criminal act; the lapse of time between the occurrences and the identification; any inconsistencies of the description given by the witness; whether there was prior misidentification; the facts surrounding the identification; and all matters relating to the identification process. Mayes v. State, 264 Ark. 283, 571 S.W.2d 420 (1978). We have stated reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. In the determination of the admissibility we consider the totality of the circumstances. Lindsey & Jackson v. State, 264 Ark. 430, 572 S.W.2d 145 (1978). In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1973), it was held that a "show up" rather than a line-up does not violate a defendant's constitutional right unless there are other circumstances rendering the identification unreliable. (276 Ark. at 472-73, 637 S.W.2d at 551.)