STATE v. BUTLER (2019)

Writ granted. The procedure employed was unduly suggestive. Specifically, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the single photographic lineup twenty-two years after the crime occurred was highly suggestive and presented a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Consequently, the identification at issue was unreliable and should be suppressed. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in Judge Jenkins's dissent, this writ is granted. The trial court's ruling denying the motion to suppress is reversed. The defendant's motion to suppress the identification is granted, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, J., would deny. Crain, J., would deny.