must review factors in Ohio

2009"Stated differently, the issue is whether the identification, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, is reliable despite the suggestive procedure." State v. Wills (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 320 , 324-325 , 697 N.E.2d 1072 , {¶ 33} The Supreme Court has set forth the following factors to consider regarding potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the

2009"Stated differently, the issue is whether the identification, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, is reliable despite the suggestive procedure." State v. Wills (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 320 , 324-325 , 697 N.E.2d 1072 , {¶ 33} The Supreme Court has set forth the following factors to consider regarding potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the

2008Coleman v. Alabama (1970), 399 U.S. 1 , 5-6 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 2001 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 , 394 . {¶ 45} A court must consider the following factors with regard to potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation * * *." Neil v. Biggers , supra. The court must review these factors under the totality of the circu

2008Coleman v. Alabama (1970), 399 U.S. 1 , 5-6 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 2001 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 , 394 . {¶ 45} A court must consider the following factors with regard to potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation * * *." Neil v. Biggers , supra. The court must review these factors under the totality of the circu

2014In civil cases, the plain error doctrine applies only “in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” State v. Gowdy, 88 Ohio St.3d 387, 399 , 727 N.E.2d 579 (2000).

2014In civil cases, the plain error doctrine applies only “in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” State v. Gowdy, 88 Ohio St.3d 387, 399 , 727 N.E.2d 579 (2000).

2013Id.

2009"Stated differently, the issue is whether the identification, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, is reliable despite the suggestive procedure." State v. Wills (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 320 , 324-325 , 697 N.E.2d 1072 , {¶ 33} The Supreme Court has set forth the following factors to consider regarding potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the

2009"Stated differently, the issue is whether the identification, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, is reliable despite the suggestive procedure." State v. Wills (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 320 , 324-325 , 697 N.E.2d 1072 , {¶ 33} The Supreme Court has set forth the following factors to consider regarding potential misidentification: "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the

2008(Internal citations omitted.) *Page 16 {¶ 45} As recently stated by this court in State v. Segines , Cuyahoga App. No. 89915, 2008-Ohio-2041 : "A court must consider the following factors with regard to potential misidentification: `the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation * * *.' The court must review these factors under the t

2001In reviewing the trial court's decision as to the admissibility of the walk and turn test this court must review such test in conformity with the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , which requires strict compliance with the standards of the NHTSA.