The trial court correctly ruled that, at the trial on the merits of innocence or guilt, no issue relevant to this case was raised by the probable-cause reasons for the defendant's initial arrest or for the admission into evidence of physical evidence previously ruled admissible at a hearing on a motion to suppress it. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973). Despite the accused's complaint, we further find no prejudice caused him by the rulings.
See, Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 983, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) (Fortas, J., concurring). Accord: State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973). But see, Massachusetts v. White, 371 N.E.2d 377 (1978), cert. granted, 436 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 2817, 56 L.Ed.2d 767, 1978.
"It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.
"It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.
The totality of the circumstances belie the contention that any impermissible suggestion occurred here. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Junius, 257 La. 331, 242 So.2d 533 (1971). The second defense complaint arose from an incident which occurred during the trial.
It is a well-settled rule that a photograph need not be identified by the person who took it to be admissible in evidence. State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La. 1974); State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Generally, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, to be a correct representation of the subject in controversy and when they tend to shed light upon the matter before the court.
The additional penalty is for the offense for which the accused has more recently been tried and convicted with the full panoply of due process. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Vale, 252 La. 1056, 215 So.2d 811 (1968); State v. Hingle, 242 La. 844, 139 So.2d 205 (1962); State v. Roy, 219 La. 97, 52 So.2d 299 (1951); State v. O'Day, 191 La. 380, 185 So. 290 (1937). This decision based on the requirement of due process in this multiple offender hearing is therefore misplaced.
This court has consistently held that it is not necessary to have the photographer testify about a picture before it can be introduced into evidence if the object pictured is properly identified by another witness. State v. Mitchell, 278 So.2d 48 (La. 1973); State v. Chambers, 263 La. 1080, 270 So.2d 514 (1972) and authorities therein cited. This assignment of error is without merit.
The issue here is whether the photographic identification procedure utilized was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. State v. Mitchell, La., 278 So.2d 48 (1973). In determining whether an identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, reference must be made to all the circumstances.
State v. Fox, 251 La. 464, 205 So.2d 42 (1967). Recently, in State v. Mitchell, La., 278 So.2d 48, we rejected an identical contention, holding: "As noted by the trial judge in his per curiam, it is not necessary that a picture be verified by the photographer in order for it to be offered into evidence."