"It is a truism that individual facial features and hair styles and lengths differ, and this makes precise correspondence of all subjects in a photo array a practical impossibility." People v. Harrell , 104 Ill. App. 3d 138, 145, 60 Ill.Dec. 264, 432 N.E.2d 1163 (1982). These differences in appearance did not render the array improper, as arrays depicting more pronounced physical differences between the defendant and the fillers have been found acceptable.

(See People v. Levine (1981), 99 Ill. App.3d 141, 426 N.E.2d 215 (defendant's photo only one in color, only one wearing sunglasses); People v. Johnson (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 649, 357 N.E.2d 151 (defendant only subject in photo array without a shirt on); People v. Hart (1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 857, 295 N.E.2d 63 (defendant's picture only one with date on it, in addition to being largest photo in array); People v. Hudson (1972), 7 Ill. App.3d 333, 287 N.E.2d 297 (defendant's photo only one in color). See also People v. Harrell (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 138, 432 N.E.2d 1163 (seven of nine photos in array older with different edges and backgrounds, defendant longer hair than others, and defendant eight years older than other suspects in actual in-person lineup).) Complete exactitude of features is not required. ( People v. Harrell (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 138, 145, 432 N.E.2d 1163, 1169.

These differences in appearance did not render the array improper, as arrays depicting more pronounced physical differences between the defendant and the fillers have been found acceptable. People v. Kubat, 94 Ill. 2d 437, 472 (1983) (only the defendant wore glasses); People v. Smith, 160 Ill. App. 3d 89, 92 (1987) (only the defendant had blonde hair and was depicted without a shirt); People v. Harrell, 104 Ill. App. 3d 138, 144-45 (1982) (defendant had longer hair than the fillers).

There was no reason for Goodman to cover the visual display during the room-air analysis and there is no evidence from which to conclude that he did so. A reviewing court cannot presume the existence of error which is not affirmatively shown of record. ( People v. Harrell (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 138, 143, 432 N.E.2d 1163, 1167.) All reasonable presumptions are in favor of the action of the trial court, and the burden is on the appellant to overcome such presumptions by affirmatively showing the errors charged.

Racanelli's confession should have been suppressed under Moore. In People v. Harrell (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 138, 142-43, 432 N.E.2d 1163, the defendant was identified in a lineup by the victim as her robbery assailant. The defendant sought suppression of this identification.

The fillers are all Hispanic males with skin tones, builds (except for one with a slightly smaller build), and facial hair similar to that of the defendant. While one filler has much longer hair than the others,' [i]t is a truism that individual facial features and hair styles and lengths differ, and this makes precise correspondence of all subjects in a photo array a practical impossibility.'" People v. Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 41 (quoting People v. Harrell, 104 Ill.App.3d 138, 145 (1982)); see also People v. Torres, 2021 IL App (1st) 182125-U (while two fillers had long ponytails, "since the other three lineup participants were viable choices for identification, the lineup was not unduly suggestive as to violate defendant's due process rights"). Moreover, these differences generally go to the weight of the evidence and not necessarily its admissibility.

Id. Individuals in a photo array or lineup need not be physically identical. Id. Courts have found that identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive where the defendant had a darker skin tone than the other individuals (id. ¶ 41), where only the defendant wore glasses (People v. Kubat, 94 Ill. 2d 437, 472 (1983)), where the defendant had a different hair color (People v. Smith, 160 Ill. App. 3d 89, 92 (1987)) or length of hair than the others (People v. Harrell, 104 Ill. App. 3d 138, 145 (1982)), and where the defendant was the only one wearing red pants, like the suspected robber (People v. Johnson, 222 Ill. App 3d 1, 7 (1991)). Differences in appearance go to the weight of the identification rather than to its admissibility.

This court has upheld identifications as not unduly suggestive even where the photo of the defendant was markedly different from the other photos included in the array. See, e.g., People v. Calvillo, 170 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1079-80 (1988) (defendant's photo was "twice as large" as other photos in array); People v. Harrell, 104 Ill. App. 3d 138, 144-45 (1982) (photos had various backgrounds); People v. Johnson, 43 Ill. App. 3d 649, 656-58 (1976) (defendant was 12 only person pictured on wearing a shirt); People v. Hudson, 7 Ill. App. 3d 333, 335-36 (1972) (defendant's was only color photograph in the array). ¶ 34 Defendant's last argument is that the manner in which the photo array was administered in this case prompted Reilly to select her photo.

However, as a police officer, McCarthy was a trained observer. See People v. Harrell, 104 Ill. App. 3d 138, 146 (1982). McCarthy testified that defendant's striped shirt was the cause of his being able to recognize defendant again after losing sight of him briefly but never testified that his identification of defendant as the gunman he had seen minutes earlier was based only on defendant's shirt.

These cases have noted that this lack of detail in a description is particularly insignificant, where, as here, the defendant has no abnormal or distinguishing features. People v. Harrell, 104 Ill. App.3d 138, 432 N.E.2d 1163 (1982); People v. Hemphill, 62 Ill. App.3d 977, 379 N.E.2d 1284 (1978). Defendant also contends that discrepancies existed in the testimony that would raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.