{
  "id": 1668970,
  "name": "John Larry LINDSEY and James E. JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lindsey v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-10-23",
  "docket_number": "CR 78-118",
  "first_page": "430",
  "last_page": "433",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 430"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "572 S.W.2d 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675964
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0707-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 L. Ed. 1247",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 U.S. 377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170914
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 U.S. 98",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6177400
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/432/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 U.S. 188",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6173155
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/409/0188-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4164,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1244588898999838e-07,
      "percentile": 0.764978962093929
    },
    "sha256": "04c145edd93e24ffd9e8cf0ce3fd6444d4504835a605e14e37fac089dd6dcedb",
    "simhash": "1:9905d00b55ac9204",
    "word_count": 681
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "John Larry LINDSEY and James E. JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellants were charged with robbery and found guilty by the court sitting as a jury. Appellant Lindsey was sentenced to seven years\u2019 and Jackson to five years\u2019 imprisonment. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the in-court identification of them by the prosecuting witness. Appellants objected to their in-court identification by the robbery victim on the ground they had been subjected to an out-of-court identification by him which did not involve a line-up. They argue that the out-of-court identification was impermissibly suggestive and the in-court identification did not stem from a source independent of the prior confrontation. Thus, the identification should have been suppressed. We cannot agree.\nThe fact that a confrontation between a victim and suspects takes place at a show-up rather than a line-up does not, without more, constitute a violation of constitutional rights. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972); and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1977). \u201cReliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony for confrontations,\u201d and if, from the \u201ctotality of the circumstances,\u201d the confrontation did not give rise to a \u201cvery substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,\u201d the in-court identification is properly admitted. Manson v. Brathwaite, supra; see also Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377, 88 S. Ct. 967, 19 L. Ed. 1247 (1968); and McCraw v. State, 262 Ark. 707, 561 S.W. 2d 71 (1978). There are several factors to consider in determining the reliability and admissibility of the identification testimony. These include the time between the commission of the crime and the confrontation, the attentiveness of the witness and his opportunity to view the accused at the time of the crime, the accuracy of his description of the accused, and the level of his certainty at the confrontation. These factors must be weighed against the \u201ccorrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.\u201d Manson v. Brathwaite, supra; and Neil v. Biggers, supra.\nHere the victim testified that the robbery occurred as he was walking across a bridge to work. He observed his assailants for three to five minutes as they approached and walked past him. Lindsey then approached him alone, asked him for his money and hit him. The other three robbers then joined Lindsey. Lindsey again asked him for his money and knocked him down. He looked directly at the participants and at Lindsey\u2019s face when he asked for money. Although it was dark, there was a bridge light ten or fifteen feet away. The momentary loss of his glasses upon being knocked down did not impair his vision. He immediately reported the robbery. He positively identified the four youths at a show-up approximately ten minutes after the police were notified. He was able to tell the police that the first two suspects shown to him did not actually hit him. He had reported to the police that the robbers took one $10 bill and two $1 bills. Within a few minutes following the robbery, the arresting officer found precisely those denominations in appellant Jackson\u2019s coat pocket.\nFurther, the reliability of the identification is not diminished by the fact that the police officer who talked with the victim immediately after the robbery had had appellants and their confederates under surveillance for more than an hour in North Little Rock, watched them walk south on the Main Street bridge shortly before the robbery, and then picked them up at the foot of the bridge after being notified of the crime.\nFrom the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that \u201ca very substantial likelihood of an irreparable misidentification\u201d was demonstrated here.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellants.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by. Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Larry LINDSEY and James E. JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 78-118\n572 S.W. 2d 145\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1978\n(Division I)\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellants.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by. Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0430-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 461
}