Ex Parte Frazier

13 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Appleton

    828 So. 2d 894 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    "Ex parte Frazier, 729 So.2d 253, 254-55 (Ala. 1998) (some emphasis in original; some emphasis added). Although a one-man showup is inherently dangerous, "it is permitted where conducted promptly after the commission of a crime or demanded by necessity, emergency or exigent circumstances."

  2. Ex Parte Wimes

    14 So. 3d 131 (Ala. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    '" 828 So.2d at 899 (quoting Ex parte Frazier, 729 So.2d 253, 254-55 (Ala. 1998) (emphasis omitted)). This Court continued: "`In determining the constitutional adequacy of pretrial identification procedures and the admissibility of identification testimony, the central question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable.'"

  3. Watkins v. State

    No. CR-20-0670 (Ala. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2022)

    In seeking to have Bass identify the robber, the officers used a procedure that has been criticized as being suggestive - a one-man showup. See Ex parte Frazier, 729 So.2d 253, 255 (Ala. 1998). The hazards attendant with such a procedure are well established:

  4. Dotch v. State

    67 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the circuit court was not required to instruct the jury regarding its consideration of prior conviction evidence when that evidence had been admitted to establish motive

    . Courts have determined [a single photograph] an identification based on lies in the fact that "the reliability of the witness's identification is not put to an objective test, such as a live or photographic lineup, in which a single suspect must be chosen from a group of persons possessing similar physical characteristics." Ex parte Frazier, 729 So.2d 253, 254-55 (Ala. 1998). Here, however, Slack was originally shown a six-man photographic array from which she tentatively identified Dotch.

  5. People v. Moore

    970 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A showup " ‘conveys a clear message that the police suspect this man.’ " Sammons , 505 Mich. at 43, 949 N.W.2d 36, quoting Ex parte Frazier , 729 So 2d 253, 255 (Ala, 1998). Although the trial court seemed to acknowledge that the procedure was suggestive, the court did not accurately acknowledge the extent of its suggestive nature.

  6. People v. Johnson

    951 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Sammons , 505 Mich. at 41-47, 949 N.W.2d 36. Taking a witness to view a suspect in the back of a police car " ‘conveys a clear message that the police suspect this man.’ " Id. at 43, 949 N.W.2d 36, quoting Ex parte Frazier , 729 So. 2d 253, 255 (Ala., 1998). There is no indication I have found in the record or that the parties have identified as to why it might have been necessary to conduct the showup rather than conducting a fair procedure.

  7. People v. Sammons

    505 Mich. 31 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 33 times
    In Sammons, the Court did not engage in the independent-basis inquiry because the identification was erroneously admitted only through the testimony of an officer involved in the improper identification procedure; the witness at issue declined to identify the defendant at either the preliminary examination or trial.

    Said another way, "a one-man showup conveys a clear message that the police suspect this man." Ex parte Frazier , 729 So. 2d 253, 255 (Ala., 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See Young v. State , 374 P.3d 395, 421 (Alas., 2016) ("Alaska courts have long restricted the use of showups as an identification procedure to where it is necessary under the circumstances.")

  8. Bailey v. City of Vestavia Hills

    390 So. 3d 1146 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022)

    " ‘Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S. Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed. 2d 401, 411 (1972) (emphasis added). See also Ex parte Frazier, [729 So. 2d 253 (Ala. 1998)].’ " Dotch, 67 So. 3d at 955 (quoting Ex parte Appleton, 828 So. 2d at 900).

  9. Shanklin v. State

    No. CR-11-1441 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2015)

    "'"[1] the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, [2] the witness's degree of attention, [3] the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal, [4] the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and [5] the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.""'Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S. Ct. 375, 382, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, 411 (1972) (emphasis added). See also Ex parte Frazier, [729 So. 2d 253 (Ala. 1998)].'"Ex parte Appleton, 828 So. 2d [828,] 900 [(Ala. 2001)]."

  10. Shanklin v. State

    187 So. 3d 734 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that, in capital-murder cases, claims in briefs not in compliance with Rule 28 are reviewed for plain error

    the witness's prior description of the criminal, [4] the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and [5] the length of time between the crime and the confrontation."" ‘Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 411 (1972) (emphasis added). See also Ex parte Frazier, [729 So.2d 253 (Ala.1998) ].’"Ex parte Appleton, 828 So.2d [894,] 900 [ (Ala.2001) ].