{
  "id": 922891,
  "name": "Mark Ledale PHILLIPS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phillips v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-01-13",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-1042",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "5",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 Ark. 1"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "936 S.W.2d 745"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "323 Ark. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1445764
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/323/0558-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750175
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898842
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 Ark. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        9160226
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/324/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 Ark. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        369183
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/325/0510-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 488,
    "char_count": 7213,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.77084526399421e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4094456858295599
    },
    "sha256": "5c58bbba1e04ab8c9aa7c18948fd1bce2dbd0ba362a6919e30105f69dd6b66fa",
    "simhash": "1:8dac2d0ee7e8d988",
    "word_count": 1184
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:41.435320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mark Ledale PHILLIPS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Mark Ledale Phillips, was convicted of rape and sentenced to forty years\u2019 imprisonment. His sole argument for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony offered by the victim and three other State\u2019s witnesses. We affirm.\nAt the close of the school day on March 15, 1995, the ten-year-old victim was walking from Forest Park Elementary in Little Rock to Forest Heights Junior High, where her mother worked as a teacher. As she was walking down Evergreen Street, she noticed that a black man wearing a black leather jacket, gloves, and jeans was behind some bushes. Thinking that the man was trimming the bushes, the victim continued walking toward her mother\u2019s school. Just as she was passing some trash dumpsters behind the cafeteria of the junior high, the man grabbed her, placed his hand over her mouth, dragged her behind the dumpsters, and threw her down on the ground. Warning her to stay quiet, the man pulled her pants and panties down to her ankles, then pulled his own pants down to his ankles. The victim could see the man\u2019s penis, which he placed inside her. The man had \u201ctouched inside her\u201d for approximately three minutes before a janitor came out of the school building to throw something away in the dumpster, causing the man to get up and run away. After the man left, the victim pulled her clothes on and went inside the school to find her mother.\nThe victim reported the rape later that evening, and a police investigation ensued. Three witnesses came forward with helpful information. Norman Stanley was a City of Little Rock employee who was cleaning a ditch on \u201cP\u201d Street near the elementary school on March 15. At approximately 2:45 p.m., he saw a man dressed in a black shirt and black pants following a girl. Troy Green, a coach at Forest Heights Junior High, was walking to his car on the afternoon in question when he noticed a young man jump over a closed gate and hit the ground. Green asked the man, \u201cIs there something wrong?\u201d The man replied, \u201cI\u2019m going home,\u201d then took off running.\nAt approximately 2:55 p.m. on March 15, Little Rock Narcotics Officer Ralph Breshears was driving northbound on University Avenue in between \u201cH\u201d Street and Evergreen Street when he noticed a black male dressed in a very thick black leather coat walking quickly up the street. Breshears thought it unusual that someone would be wearing a heavy coat on such a warm day. He also noticed the man\u2019s unusual mannerisms, as he appeared to be in a hurry and was making very rapid head movements as if he was looking for something or someone.\nOn March 16, 1995, the day after the incident, Detective Delores Hanna Middleton of the Little Rock Police Department conducted a photographic lineup consisting of six pictures. The appellant\u2019s picture was not included in this array. The victim picked two of the persons as \u201clook-alikes\u201d of the man who raped her. On March 17, 1995, the police received an anonymous tip that resulted in appellant becoming a suspect. Later on March 17, the victim viewed a second photographic lineup that included appellant\u2019s picture. According to Detective Middleton, the victim pointed to Phillips\u2019s picture and stated, \u201cThat\u2019s him. I am a hundred percent sure.\u201d This lineup was separately shown to Norman Stanley, Troy Green, and Ralph Breshears. All three witnesses identified appellant as the man they had seen on March 15.\nBased on these identifications, appellant was charged with rape. Prior to appellant\u2019s trial, he moved to have the pretrial identifications as well as any subsequent in-court identifications suppressed on the ground that the lineup was unduly suggestive. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. At appellant\u2019s bench trial, the victim, along with Mr. Stanley, Mr. Green, and Detective Breshears positively identified appellant. Mr. Stanley also identified the victim as the girl whom appellant had followed. The trial court found appellant guilty as charged, and, following a subsequent hearing, sentenced him to forty years\u2019 imprisonment.\nWe will not reverse a trial court\u2019s ruling on the admissibility of an in-court identification unless the ruling is clearly erroneous under the totality of the circumstances. Wooten v. State, 325 Ark. 510, 931 S.W.2d 408 (1996); Prowell v. State, 324 Ark. 335, 921 S.W.2d 585 (1996). In determining whether an in-court identification is admissible, we look first at whether the pretrial identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive or otherwise constitutionally suspect; it is the appellant\u2019s burden to show that the pretrial identification procedure was suspect. Id. A pretrial identification violates the Due Process Clause when there are suggestive elements in the identification procedure that make it all but inevitable that the victim will identify one person as the culprit. Id.\nAppellant contends that the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive because he was the only person wearing an extremely dark shirt in the photo spread. While appellant was photographed wearing a purple shirt, he claims that his shirt was so dark purple that it appeared to be black. In denying appellant\u2019s motion, the trial court observed that the photo spreads were \u201cextremely well put together.\u201d In viewing the pictures from this array, we cannot say that the lineup was unduly suggestive, nor can we conclude that the trial court\u2019s ruling was clearly erroneous. First, even if we were to agree that appellant\u2019s shirt appeared black rather than purple, we have held that a lineup is not per se unconstitutionaUy suggestive merely because only one person was wearing a piece of clothing similar to that worn by the offender. Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479, 839 S.W.2d 6 (1992); Hogan v. State, 281 Ark. 250, 663 S.W.2d 726 (1984). Indeed, an accused is not entitled to have a lineup in which all the participants are identical. Wooten, supra; Perry v. State, 277 Ark. 357, 642 S.W.2d 865 (1982). In any event, all six men in the lineup were similar in appearance and had comparable facial features. Even more significantly, there is nothing in the lineup that would direct a witness toward appellant as the primary suspect. See Wooten, supra; King v. State, 323 Ark. 558, 916 S.W.2d 725 (1996). Finally, there has been no contention that Detective Middleton sought to influence the identifications by the methods she used in presenting the photographs. See King, supra.\nAppellant also argues that the identifications were unreliable. As we do not determine reliability unless there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, we need not address this issue because we hold that the lineup was not unduly suggestive. Id. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court\u2019s denial of appellant\u2019s motion to suppress the identification testimony was not clearly erroneous.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Willia.m R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mark Ledale PHILLIPS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-1042\n936 S.W.2d 745\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 13, 1997\nWillia.m R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 33
}