State v. Miles
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMarkus, J.
The state appeals from an order suppressing the victim’s identification of the defendants as the offenders. The trial court reasonably concluded that unduly suggestive procedures induced the victim to identify them, so we affirm the disputed order.
I
The grand jury indicted the three defendants for aggravated robbery and felonious assault. Prior to trial the defendants moved to suppress the victim’s identification testimony. They asserted that the state denied them due process by unfairly persuading the victim to identify them as the culprits. Five witnesses testified at the court’s evidentiary…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- City of Xenia v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. MoodyOhio Supreme Court · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. Grays, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2001)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001