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. The state proved by clear and convincing evidence that the identification rested on an independent, untainted basis, including the witness’s prior familiarity with the defendant, opportunity to observe him, attention, and certainty. The court declined to adopt the proposed per se or presumptive exclusion rules, while leaving open whether different circumstances involving identification of a stranger might warrant reconsideration.