As noted in Boling, in Kansas we have at least three cases which would indicate that the broader interpretation of the term "suppressing evidence" in K.S.A. 22-3603 prevails here. In State v. Dotson, 222 Kan. 487, 565 P.2d 261 (1977), this court, without mention of the jurisdictional question, entertained an interlocutory appeal by the State from a pretrial order suppressing an out-of-court identification. In State v. Eubanks, 2 Kan. App. 2d 262, 577 P.2d 1208, rev. denied 225 Kan. 846 (1978), the Court of Appeals, again without mention of the jurisdictional question, entertained an interlocutory appeal by the State from an order suppressing the testimony of a police officer who could not produce his field notes.
The argument of the appellant has been before the court on several occasions and found to be without merit. In State v. Dotson, 222 Kan. 487, 565 P.2d 261 (1977), we held: "The dates printed on the front of photographs do not as a matter of law make a photographic identification procedure so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."
The State was careful to limit possible prejudice by concealing the date and number on the photo with masking tape. See State v. Dotson, 222 Kan. 487, 489-90, 565 P.2d 261 (1977). (3) At trial, the appellant's counsel moved for a continuance to locate the first defense witness, Gina Guerra. The appellant contends the trial court erred in requiring counsel, in the jury's presence, to state the reason for the continuance.
Mere disparity in dates on photographs is not sufficient to invalidate a photographic lineup. Cf. State v. Dotson, 565 P.2d 261 (Kan. 1977); State v. Mitchell, 556 P.2d 874 (Kan. 1976); People v. Hill, 528 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1974); Reed v. State, 281 A.2d 142 (Del. 1971). But cf. Brown v. Com., 564 S.W.2d 24 (Ky.App. 1978) (date of robbery plus "ROB" on photographs too suggestive).
Boling also drew this jurisdictional line in the sand despite its observation that three earlier interlocutory appeals by the State were analyzed by our appellate courts without any mention of first satisfying "the jurisdictional question." 5 Kan. App. 2d at 377, 617 P.2d 102 (citing State v. Dotson, 222 Kan. 487, 565 P.2d 261 [1977]; State v. Eubanks, 2 Kan. App. 2d 262, 577 P.2d 1208 [1978]; State v. Wilkins, 220 Kan. 735, 556 P.2d 424 [1976]).
In Kansas we have at least three cases on the books which would indicate that the broader view prevails here. One is State v. Dotson, 222 Kan. 487, 565 P.2d 261 (1977), in which the court, without mention of the jurisdictional question, entertained an interlocutory appeal by the state from a pretrial order suppressing an out-of-court identification. Another is State v. Eubanks, 2 Kan.App.2d 262, 577 P.2d 1208 (1978), where the court, again without mention of the jurisdictional question, entertained an interlocutory appeal by the state from an order suppressing the testimony of a police officer who could not produce his field notes.