People v. James

California Court of Appeal Feb 3, 1969 No. Crim. 14705Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an accidental, non-police-suggested identification of a suspect through a one-way mirror did not violate the defendant's due process rights under the totality of the circumstances.

Issues

Whether the victim's identification of the defendant through a one-way mirror was so unnecessarily suggestive as to deny due process.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question is whether, as a matter of law, the record shows that the identification ‘1. . . was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process of law.””

“We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances presented, the identification did not result in a violation of due process.”

JEFFERSON, J.

Defendant appeals from the judgment

[361]

entered upon his conviction by the court of second degree robbery.

Viewed as is required in the light most favorable to the People, the following facts appear: At about 9 :30 p.m. a man approached Sophie Quinn as she was walking on the sidewalk of a well-lit Hollywood business district. He made an insulting comment to her and then struck her, knocking her to the ground. As she looked up she saw the man running off with her purse. She reported the incident to the police and gave them a description of the man.

The next morning she received a call from Officer Slaff asking her to come down to the police station. At the station the officer showed her a number of photographs of Negro men. She picked out the photograph of defendant as the man who robbed her.

After showing Mrs. Quinn the photographs, Officer Slaff left her at the uniform desk and went downstairs into the jail to get a lineup ready. Defendant, who had been arrested at about 10:30 the night before, was seated at an interview table in the jail. Slaff needed six Negroes to put in the lineup with defendant. He discovered, however, that no other Negroes were in the jail at the time. He then returned to tell Mrs. Quinn that the lineup would have to be held at a later date.

In the meantime, while Slaff was downstairs, Mrs. Quinn walked over to the corridor which leads into the jail and, through a one-way mirror which permits a view into the jail, observed defendant seated alone at the interview table. When Slaff returned Mrs. Quinn informed him that she had looked through the window and had seen the person who robbed her.

The next day Mrs. Quinn attended a lineup and picked defendant out of a group of men of the same race and general description. At the trial she positively identified him as the robber.

Officer Slaff interviewed defendant prior to Mrs. Quinn’s arrival at the police station on the morning after the robbery. At the time he advised defendant of his constitutional rights (in compliance with

Miranda

People v. James

AI Brief

JEFFERSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief