56
Despite the fact that a one-man showup is inherently suggestive, Alabama courts have
held that an “on-the-scene confrontation may be consistent with good police work”F
45
when it is “conducted promptly after the commission of a crime or demanded by
necessity, emergency or exigent circumstances.”
F
46
Alabama courts have held that
despite the inherent suggestiveness of a one-man showup, “‘it does not necessarily follow
that the procedure . . . would taint [a] subsequent in-court identification,’”
F
47
without
more facts evidencing impermissible suggestiveness and, that the impermissible
suggestiveness gives rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Alabama courts have found certain one-man showups to be violative of due process,
F
48
and others to be reasonable.
F
49
Furthermore, Alabama courts have deemed certain pre-trial identification procedures not
impermissibly suggestive where the suspect/defendant was the only participant of a
certain age,
F
50
height,F
51
complexion,F
52
and with a particular amount of facial hair. F
53
Additionally, slight discrepancies such as the photo of a defendant being a black-and-
white newspaper file photograph while the other photos were black-and-white mugshots,
did not taint the pre-trial identification procedure.
F
54
The simple fact that the defendant
45
Brazell v. State, 369 So. 2d 25, 29 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978).
46
Appleton, 828 So. 2d at 900.
47
Gavin, 891 So. 2d at 960 (citing Quarles v. State, 711 So. 2d 1115, 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)).
48
See, e.g., Brazell, 369 So. 2d at 28 (holding that the showup was impermissibly suggestive because (1)
the witness went to the station to “actually identify the guy” and was shown articles of clothing of a
suspected perpetrator, which implies that the police told him they had a suspect, (2) showing only one
suspect suggested that the defendant had been wearing those clothes and therefore, committed the crime,
and (3) the record showed no necessity, emergency or exigent circumstances for the showup; and there was
a very substantial likelihood of misidentification because (1) the showup was held nine hours after the
crime, (2) the witness admitted making assumptions about the suspect based on the officer’s conduct, (3)
there were glaring inconsistencies between the witness’s initial description of the suspect and the
defendant, and (4) the witness could not identify the defendant as the perpetrator during the suppression
hearing).
49
Cooley v. State, 439 So. 2d 193, 195 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that the showup was not
impermissibly suggestive because it was done at the scene of the crime only a few hours after the robbery,
the promptness of which insured that the recollection of the perpetrator was accurate and fresh in the
witness’s mind, lessening the likelihood of irreparable misidentification).
50
Cf. Harris v. State, 629 So. 2d 618, 619 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976) (holding that the fact that one person in
the lineup, not the defendant, was much older than the rest of the participants does not by itself make a
lineup impermissibly suggestive).
51
See Watkins v. State, 449 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) (holding that although the police
made the defendant stand and the other individuals in the photographic lineup bend their knees, this did not
render the procedure impermissibly suggestive because the police were attempting to comport with the law
requiring all participants to be of similar height and the officers did not know that the lineup photograph
would be taken lengthwise); Jones v. State, 450 So. 2d 165, 169-70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that
the fact that the defendant was the shortest person in the lineup did not render the procedure impermissibly
suggestive because his height was not so dissimilar).
52
See Williamson v. State, 384 So. 2d 1224, 1227, 1229 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (holding that the fact
that all other participants in the six-man photospread were of either a darker or lighter complexion did not
render the procedure impermissibly suggestive).
53
See Frazier v. State, 528 So. 2d 1144, 1149 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) (holding that a photospread where
the defendant was the only participant with a full beard while all others had a mustache and some facial
hair around the chin did not render the procedure impermissibly suggestive).
54
Jackson v. State, 593 So. 2d 167, 172 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). But see Hull v. State, 581 So. 2d 1202,
1204 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that photographic spread containing a black-and-white photograph
of the defendant and color photographs of four other subjects was “impermissibly suggestive”).