ILNews

Pre-trial ID of attacker allowed at trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The trial court didn’t err in allowing a victim’s pre-trial identification of his attacker, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in a matter of first impression.

Anthony Neukam attacked his former girlfriend’s new boyfriend, Carlos Aquino, putting Aquino in the hospital. The two have never met but Aquino recognized Neukam from photos in the girlfriend’s home and on the girlfriend’s MySpace page. Aquino told police it was Neukam who attacked him. Police got a print of Neukam’s photo from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and showed the photo to Aquino; he confirmed that was the man who attacked him.

Before his trial for battery and criminal mischief started, Neukam filed a motion to suppress the out-of-court identification, which the trial court denied. He was convicted of both charges.

In Anthony E. Neukam v. State of Indiana, No. 16A01-1002-CR-50, Neukam argues the identification process was unduly suggestive because the police officer showed Aquino only one photo that had Neukam’s name on it. Even though he failed to object at trial to the identification evidence and waived his claim on appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed it and found he wouldn’t have prevailed.

Aquino wasn’t identifying an unknown assailant and told police who his attacker was right after he was attacked. Only after Aquino said who his attacker was did police show him Neukam’s photo, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

There isn’t any other Indiana case on this point, but using a case out of Kansas, State v. Franklin, 121 P.3d 447, 453 (Kan. 2005), they found the identification evidence to be properly admitted.

“The police showed Aquino Neukam’s BMV photograph, not so that Aquino could identify an unknown assailant, but simply to confirm that the Anthony Neukam Aquino identified was the same person as the defendant. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that this identification was impermissibly suggestive,” wrote the judge.

The appellate court also found sufficient evidence to support Neukam’s convictions.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT