State v. Johanesen

In State v. Classen, 285 Or 221, 232, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), this court, in the context of a motion by a defendant to suppress photographic identification evidence offered for substantive purposes 1 on the ground that it was the product of a suggestive procedure, stated as a matter of evidence law, not constitutional law, that the decision on admissibility involves two steps:

“First, the court must determine whether the process leading to the offered identification was suggestive or needlessly departed from procedures prescribed to avoid such suggestiveness. If so, then [the second step…