- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 01-25-2017
- Case #: A154099
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Wollheim, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his conviction for third degree assault on the basis of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the victim’s identification of Defendant through a photo lineup administered by a police officer on the night of the incident. Defendant argued that the identification through the photo lineup failed to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of OEC 602, because of the many circumstances that undermined the ability of the victim to have enough personal knowledge to identify Defendant, such as: the victim only had a brief observation of the assailants, when he was scared and tired, in a dark parking lot, late at night, after he had been assaulted from behind. Defendant also argued that the State failed to meet its burden under OEC 701 because the photo lineup was suggestive. The Court held that the State satisfied OEC 602’s personal knowledge requirement because a rational juror could find on the facts that the victim was able to make enough observations to identify Defendant, citing the victim’s earlier contact with Defendant in a well-lit bar and again just before the assault. The Court, relying on Haugen, held that the lineup was not suggestive because any reasonable factfinder would conclude that victim’s identification of Defendant was “’more likely based’ on his ‘own perceptions’ than any other factors.” Affirmed.