State v. Rohena

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that admitting the eyewitness’s in-court identification did not violate either federal or state due process. Under the federal standard, the state established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness’s identification rested on an independent, untainted basis, including prior familiarity with the defendant, ample opportunity to observe him, heightened attention, and certainty. The court declined to replace its existing federal or state constitutional approach with the defendant’s proposed per se or presumptive exclusion rules.