People v. Hickman - 470 Mich. 602, 684 N.W.2d 267 (2004)

Rule:

The right to counsel attaches only to corporeal identifications conducted at or after the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.

Facts:

Jonathan Hickman was convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b(1); conspiracy, MCL 750.157a; and armed robbery, MCL 750.529, for robbing the complainant of $ 26 and two two-way radios. The complainant testified that two men approached him from behind and robbed him. He testified that one of the men, later identified as Hickman, pointed a gun at his face while the other person took the radios and money. The complainant then called the police and gave a description of the two men, as well as a description of the gun. An officer soon saw a man fitting the description of the man with the gun. The man, later identified as Hickman, was caught after a foot chase. During the chase, the police saw Hickman throw something and they later recovered a chrome handgun that matched the complainant's description of the gun. Hickman was carrying one of the two-way radios. Approximately ten minutes later, an officer took the complainant to a police car in which Hickman was being held. The officer asked the complainant if the person sitting in the police car was involved in the robbery. The complainant immediately responded that Hickman was the man who had the gun. Hickman’s motion to suppress an on-the-scene identification by the victim on the ground that Hickman was not represented by counsel at the time of the identification was denied, and Hickman was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hickman’s conviction. The Court held that the prompt on-the-scene identification did not offend the requirements set forth in Anderson and rejected Hickman’s due process claim, holding that the identification was not unduly suggestive. Hickman appealed.

Issue:

Is counsel required before an on-the-scene identification can be admitted at trial?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

In affirming the court of appeals affirmance of Hickman’s conviction, the court held that the right to counsel attached only to corporeal identifications conducted at or after the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.