PERRY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE 132 S.Ct. 716 (2012) CASE BRIEF

PERRY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE

132 S.Ct. 716 (2012)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Perry (D) appealed the denial of a motion to suppress a witness's identification on the ground that admitting it at trial would violate due process.

FACTS: Ullon called the Police and reported that an African-American male was trying to break into cars. Officer Clay responded to the call. Clay heard what 'sounded like a metal bat hitting the ground.' She then saw D standing between two cars. D walked toward Clay, who was holding two car-stereo amplifiers in his hands. A metal bat lay on the ground behind him. D said he found them on the ground. Ullon's wife, woke her neighbor, Alex Clavijo, and told him she had just seen someone break into his car. Clavijo immediately went downstairs to the parking lot to inspect the car. He first observed that one of the rear windows had been shattered. On further inspection, he discovered that the speakers and amplifiers from his car stereo were missing, as were his bat and wrench. Clavijo then approached Clay and told her about Blandon's alert and his own subsequent observations. Clay asked D to stay in the parking lot with another officer, while she and Clavijo went up to the apartment to talk to Ullon's wife. Clay took down statements that she saw a tall, African-American man roaming the parking lot and looking into cars. Eventually, the man circled Clavijo's car, opened the trunk, and removed a large box. Clay asked for a more specific description of the man. She pointed to her kitchen window and said the person she saw breaking into Clavijo's car was standing in the parking lot, next to the police officer. D was arrested. D moved to suppress the identification on the ground that admitting it at trial would violate due process. D claimed that it was a one-person show up in the parking lot. D argued that suggestive circumstances alone would trigger the court's duty to evaluate the reliability of the resulting identification before allowing presentation of the evidence to the jury. The motion was denied. Blandon pointed to D 'spontaneously,' the court noted, 'without any inducement from the police.' D was convicted and appealed. The New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected D's argument and affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner