People v. Allender

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Garrett

    366 N.E.2d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    35 Ill. App.3d 880, 884. In People v. Allender, 33 Ill. App.3d 843, 342 N.E.2d 284, this court listed five factors to consider in determining the likelihood of the misidentification of defendants. Those factors were as follows: (1) Opportunity of the witness to view the suspect, (2) witness' degree of attention, (3) accuracy of witness' description of suspect, (4) level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and (5) length of time between the crime and confrontation. ( 33 Ill. App.3d 843, 846.) In that case a policeman observed a burglary in progress for about 10 to 15 seconds. It was night and the policeman was about 35 feet from the perpetrators who were inside a building.

  2. People v. Allender

    370 N.E.2d 509 (Ill. 1977)   Cited 13 times

    In a jury trial in the circuit court of Monroe County, defendant, Howard L. Allender, was convicted of attempted burglary and sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than three nor more than seven years. The appellate court reversed ( 33 Ill. App.3d 843), and we allowed the People's petition for leave to appeal. In reversing the judgment the appellate court held that the photographic identification procedure used by an Illinois State Trooper "was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and that there was an insufficient basis for the in-court identification."

  3. People v. Santiago

    369 N.E.2d 125 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    ( People v. Johnson (1970), 45 Ill.2d (1970), 45 Ill.2d 38, 257 N.E.2d 3; People v. McMath 33, 256 N.E.2d 835, cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 846, 27 L.Ed.2d 83, 91 S.Ct. 92.) In order to meet this burden, the totality of circumstances must not only show suggestive conditions ( People v. Lee (1969), 44 Ill.2d 161, 254 N.E.2d 469 (defendant shown handcuffed to one previously identified as a perpetrator); People v. Blumenshine (1969), 42 Ill.2d 508, 250 N.E.2d 152 (defendant shown alone to witnesses to the crime after the police had announced that they had captured the suspect); People v. Allender (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 843, 342 N.E.2d 284 (one photo showup where witness was specifically requested to view this photo based upon defendant's mere association or friendship with a previously identified perpetrator); People v. Fultz (1975), 32 Ill. App.3d 317, 336 N.E.2d 288 (defendant observed while handcuffed and being escorted by police); People v. Castillo (1970), 130 Ill. App.2d 387, 264 N.E.2d 516 (where defendant's complexion and/or coloring were significantly different than that of other lineup participants, and this difference formed a distinguishing facet of the witness' description of the perpetrator).) In addition, the circumstances must show a substantial likelihood of misidentification which is dependent upon an evaluation of the following criteria: "[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length