Identification of Perpetrator of Crime
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Clark, No. E2021-00558-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2022).
The Simmons court held that “convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Id. at 384; see Sloan v. State, 584 S.W.2d 461, 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978).
State of Tennessee v. Clift, No. M2021-00425-CCA-R3-CD, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 9, 2022).
The identification of the perpetrator of a crime is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 388 (Tenn. 2005). In resolving questions of fact, such as the identity of the perpetrator, “‘the jury bears the responsibility of evaluating the conflicting evidence and accrediting the testimony of the most plausible witnesses.’” State v. Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363, 369 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting State v. Hornsby, 858 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tenn. 1993)).
