Legal Opinion

State v. Kinard

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 18, 2001No. 19633-0-IIIPublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

— A photomontage is admissible unless it is so “impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” State v. Barker, 103 Wn. App. 893, 905, 14 P.3d 863 (2000), review denied, 143 Wn.2d 1021 (2001). Here, the trial court found that there was little likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The finding is supported factually and follows the court’s consideration of appropriate factors. The judge did not then abuse his discretion. We also reject Mr. Kinard’s challenge to the trial court’s discretionary decision to admit testimony about…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. DaughertyWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. HilliardWashington Supreme Court · 1977

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. SalinasCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  2. State v. KinardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. State v. KloepperCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. State v. SanchezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  5. State v. BirchCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API