five Biggers factors in Illinois

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2016The court cited its previous holding in Piatkowski that "a 'positive identification by a single eyewitness who had ample opportunity to observe is sufficient to support a conviction.' " Id. (quoting Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 566 ). ¶ 60 Applying the five Biggers factors here, we conclude that they were favorable to the State, and defendant has failed to show that the identification testimony of the two police officers was unreliable.

2022The Supreme Court held that “the central question” is “whether under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ the identification was reliable.” Id. at 199 . ¶ 51 The defendant argues that three of the five Biggers factors weigh in favor of a finding that Dunn’s identification of the defendant was not reliable.

2021On August 13, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. ¶ 39 ANALYSIS ¶ 40 On appeal, defendant contends: (1) he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the State presented unreliable witness identifications; (2) he received ineffective assistance when trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress his arrest; and (3) his mittimus violates the one-act, one-crime rule. ¶ 41 A. Witness Identification ¶ 42 Defendant contends that Tate and Stingley were inherently unreliable pursuant to the five Biggers factors citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 199-200 (1972) as suppo

2020See Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 63 (“[d]efendant’s argument regarding the - 10 - sufficiency of the evidence fails because the weaknesses in the evidence that defendant cites on appeal were all presented to, considered, and rejected” by the factfinder). ¶ 67 Applying the five Biggers factors to Naja’s view of just Thompson does not lead us to find her identification unreliable.

2020See Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ); supra ¶ 46 (listing the five Biggers factors).

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2025App. 3d at 109 (quoting Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 567); see also Middleton, 2018 IL App (1st) 152040 , ¶ 22.

2021We reiterate that a single witness’ identification “is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness viewed the accused under circumstances permitting a positive identification.” People v. Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 ; see also Siguenza- Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228 (“the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to convict, even though it is contradicted by the defendant.”).

2021Importantly, our supreme court has “approved showups near the scene of the crime as acceptable police procedure designed to aid police in determining whether to continue or end the search for the culprits.” Jones, 2017 IL App (1st) 143766, ¶ 27 (quoting People v. Lippert, 89 Ill. 2d 171, 188 (1982)). ¶ 34 In sum, the five Biggers factors support the trial court’s decision to find Helliwell’s identification to be credible and reliable.

2021He argues that “it is possible” Diers recognized defendant only after he had learned that defendant had been charged with criminal trespass to his car, equating it to a “one-man show-up” which tainted his subsequent identification of defendant in the photo array and in court. ¶ 42 While defendant is correct that one-man showups are generally considered unduly suggestive and are not favored as a means of identification (See People v. Hughes, 259 Ill.

2021Importantly, our supreme court has “approved showups near the scene of the crime as acceptable police procedure designed to aid police in determining whether to continue or end the search for the culprits.” Jones, 2017 IL App (1st) 143766, ¶ 27 (quoting People v. Lippert, 89 Ill. 2d 171, 188 (1982)). ¶ 34 In sum, the five Biggers factors support the trial court’s decision to find Helliwell’s identification to be credible and reliable.