State v. McLaurin

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the eyewitness’s identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances even assuming that the one-on-one showup was unnecessarily suggestive. The court relied on the witness’s opportunity to observe the defendant, attention, accurate prior description, certainty, and the short interval between the robbery and identification. It also rejected arguments based on marijuana use, fear, weapon focus, and the absence of a double-blind, sequential procedure.