Miscellaneous Issues

Identity is a question of fact, not a question of law

• “The identity of an accused is a question of fact and not a question of law. Therefore, the weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.”

Williams v. State, 455 N.E.2d 299, 303 (Ind. 1983)(quoting Rhodes v. State, 290 N.E.2d 504, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972))

Jones v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1255, 1260 (Ind. 1985)(citing Williams v. State, 455 N.E.2d 299, 303 (Ind. 1983))(“The identity of an accused is a question of fact, not law. Therefore, the weight to be given identification evidence and any determination of whether it is satisfactory and trustworthy is a function of the trier of facts.”)

See Ard v. State, 312 N.E.2d 512, 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974), reh’g denied(citing Rhodes v. State, 290 N.E.2d 504, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972))(“The identity of an accused is a question of fact, and the weight to be given identification evidence and any determinations as to its trustworthiness are functions for the trier of fact.”)

Character evidence: Using crimes, wrongs, or other acts to prove identity

• For information on how crimes, wrongs, or other acts can be used to prove identity, please review To Prove Identity.

Defendant’s request for a lineup

• The granting of a lineup at the defendant's request, like other discovery matters in a criminal case, is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court.

Gray v. State, 563 N.E.2d 108, 111 (Ind. 1990), reh’g denied(citing Glover v. State, 441 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. 1982))

See Howell v. State, 493 N.E.2d 473, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)(citing Morris v. State, 471 N.E.2d 288, 290 (Ind. 1984))(“It is clear that pre-trial lineups are part of the discovery process in criminal cases over which the trial court has discretionary power.”)

See also Morris v. State, 471 N.E.2d 288, 290 (Ind. 1984)(quoting State ex rel Keller v. Criminal Ct. of Marion Cty., 317 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 1974))(“An order for a pre-trial line-up requested by the defendant would be in the nature of a discovery order, ‘within the discretionary power of the trial judge to guide and control the trial in the best interests of Justice', in that it could reasonably lead to the discovery of grounds useful for impeachment of the identification witnesses.”)

• “We find considerations having relevance to the equities of such petitions [for lineups] to be their proximity in time to the alleged offense and the trial, any changed appearance of the accused, the likelihood of misidentification, and the cost of conducting a line-up in all reasonable terms. They should not be granted routinely or in a perfunctory manner.”

Gray v. State, 563 N.E.2d 108, 111 (Ind. 1990), reh’g denied(quoting Morris v. State, 471 N.E.2d 288, 290 (Ind. 1984))

Howell v. State, 493 N.E.2d 473, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)(quoting Morris v. State, 471 N.E.2d 288, 290 (Ind. 1984))

Defendant’s request for a voice lineup

• [The defendant] next contends the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion for a voice lineup. [The defendant] suggests there was a likelihood of mistaken identification. The granting of a lineup at the defendant's request is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. State, 490 N.E.2d 748, 753 (Ind. 1986). In the present case, [the witness] positively identified [the defendant] from six photographs. There has been no showing that the failure to require a voice lineup prejudiced [the defendant]. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying [the defendant’s] motion.

Goolsby v. State, 517 N.E.2d 54, 57 (Ind. 1987)(emphasis added)