State v. Allen

                                      584

   Submitted January 15, 2019; convictions on Counts 4 and 6 reversed and
   remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed June 30, 2021


                      STATE OF OREGON,
                       Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                 v.
                     RACINA JEAN ALLEN,
                       Defendant-Appellant.
                   Klamath County Circuit Court
                       1402843CR; A164597
                                   

     Defendant appeals a judgment convicting her, by unanimous jury verdict,
of second-degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) (Counts 3 and
5); and, by nonunanimous verdict, of first-degree assault and UUW (Counts 4
and 6). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the eyewitness
identifications of defendant by two state witnesses, in failing to give defendant’s
proposed jury instruction on assessing eyewitness identification evidence, and
that it plainly erred in instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous
verdicts and when it entered convictions based on that instruction. Held: First,
although the trial court erred in ruling that the test under State v. Lawson/
James, 

, 

 (2012), for determining the admissibility of
eyewitness-identification evidence did not apply, the trial court did not err in
alternatively ruling that the evidentiary admissibility requirements were established and allowing the testimony. Second, although the trial court erred in failing to give defendant’s proposed eyewitness-identification jury instruction, that
error was harmless on this record. Third, the Court of Appeals agreed with and
accepted the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred in instructing
the jury that it could return a 10-2 verdict on the convictions that were based on
nonunanimous verdicts, but concluded that that error did not require reversal on
the convictions that were based on unanimous verdicts.
    Convictions on Counts 4 and 6 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.



    Roxanne B. Osborne, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the briefs for respondent.
  Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Ortega, Judge, and
Aoyagi, Judge.
Cite as 

 (2021)                     585

  ORTEGA, J.
  Convictions on Counts 4 and 6 reversed and remanded;
remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
586                                            State v. Allen

         ORTEGA, J.
         While standing on a porch with friends, Barney and
Pelletier got into a confrontation with a woman later identified as defendant; each was stabbed shortly thereafter by
someone they identified as the same woman. A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of second-degree assault and
unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) for the stabbing of Barney
(Counts 3 and 5) and rendered nonunanimous guilty verdicts against defendant for first-degree assault and UUW
for the stabbing of Pelletier (Counts 4 and 6). Defendant
appeals that judgment, raising three assignments of error:
that the trial court erred in (1) admitting as excited utterances the statements of Pelletier, a nontestifying victim,
because his unavailability had not been sufficiently established; (2) admitting the eyewitness identifications of defendant by two state witnesses; and (3) failing to give defendant’s proposed jury instruction on assessing eyewitness
identification evidence. In supplemental briefing, defendant
raises two additional assignments, arguing that the trial
court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that it could
return nonunanimous verdicts and when it entered convictions based on that instruction. In defendant’s view, the giving of the instruction is structural error or, alternatively,
not harmless error.
         We agree that the trial court plainly erred in
instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous
verdict, which requires us to reverse the convictions based
on nonunanimous verdicts (Counts 4 and 6). That error,
however, does not require us to reverse the convictions that
were based on unanimous verdicts (Counts 3 and 5). Because
we are reversing and remanding the convictions related to
victim Pelletier, and because defendant’s challenge to the
admission of Pelletier’s statements is directed only to those
convictions, we need not address that assignment of error.
We further conclude that the trial court ultimately did not
err in admitting eyewitness identification evidence, although
some of its legal conclusions along the way were erroneous
in ways that do not compel reversal as to admission of that
evidence. Finally, we conclude that the trial court erred in
refusing to give defendant’s requested jury instruction on
assessing eyewitness identification evidence. However, in the
Cite as 

 (2021)                                               587

context of the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that
the error was harmless.
         We begin by addressing defendant’s second assignment, in which he challenges the trial court’s admission
of eyewitness identification evidence. In reviewing a trial
court’s admission of such evidence, we defer to the court’s
findings of fact if they are supported by any evidence in the
record. We review the trial court’s evidentiary ruling for
legal error. State v. Engle, 

, 

,
rev den, 

 (2016). We set out the following facts, as
established at the pretrial hearing on defendant’s motion to
exclude eyewitness identification evidence, consistent with
that standard of review. See State v. Sperou, 

, 

 (2019) (explaining that an appellate court’s
“review of a trial court’s ruling is limited to the record as it
had developed at the time of the ruling”).
         Victims Barney and Pelletier went to visit Phillip
Mosttler at his home one night. Phillip’s son Xavier1 was
there, along with another person, Rich. As Phillip, Xavier,
Barney, and Pelletier were all on the front porch smoking,2
they saw a woman, later identified as defendant, arguing
with and following a man, later identified as Brown, who
was shirtless and carrying a backpack. Barney and Pelletier
left the porch and began to follow them to make sure the
woman was safe and returned shortly thereafter. While
the group was on the porch finishing their cigarettes, the
woman approached and, standing at the steps to the porch,
began yelling at them for meddling in her business. Barney
and Pelletier argued with her while Phillip and Xavier were
standing “close.” The confrontation took place “right there
at [the] steps” of the porch. The group eventually walked
back into the house away from the woman. While inside,
the group began discussing who the woman might be, and
someone suggested defendant’s name.
         Shortly after the group had walked back into the
house Barney walked back outside, returned with a stab
    1
      Because they share the same last name, for clarity we refer to the Mosttlers
by their first names, Phillip and Xavier.
    2
      It is unclear from the record whether Rich was also on the porch during
these events, but the record contains evidence that she was at the home on the
night of the incident.
588                                            State v. Allen

wound, and said, “she got me.” Pelletier then went outside,
returned with a stab wound, and said, “she got me.” Phillip
and Xavier attended to their wounds, and Rich called 9-1-1.
Rich gave the operator defendant’s name as the woman who
had just stabbed Barney and Pelletier.
          Officers and paramedics responded to the home.
After Barney and Pelletier were transported to the hospital, Deputy Kaber spoke to Phillip and Xavier separately
about what had happened while other officers canvassed the
neighborhood looking for defendant. Phillip explained what
occurred at the home and provided a physical description
of the suspect as a “Native American female … between
5' 5'' [and] 5' 7'', and 170 pounds, wearing a dark gray or
black hooded sweatshirt and jeans.” Kaber asked Phillip
how the group had come up with defendant’s name as the
suspect, and he stated that “they all live in a tightknit community … and were talking about who it could have been
…, and her name was spoken.” Although Phillip could not
recall who first said defendant’s name, he told Kaber “that
they had collectively believed that she matched the description and they knew that she lived nearby.” Kaber understood
that “most of them knew the name more than they knew the
person.” Kaber next spoke to Xavier, and he gave a “nearly
identical” account to Phillip’s.
         Kaber needed to compare the name given to the
9-1-1 operator with a photograph of that person to ensure
that he was sending officers to locate the right person. He
brought Phillip and Xavier to his patrol car and, while they
were standing together, showed them two photos of defendant on his mobile computer terminal—a Department of
Motor Vehicles photo and a larger jail booking photo. He
showed them the first photograph and then the other and
asked them “if that was … the person that they had
named” and “who they thought was responsible for the stabbing.” They both responded that they were “95 percent” sure
that she was the same woman who had confronted them on
their porch and who they believed had stabbed Barney and
Pelletier.
       Kaber visited Barney at the hospital that night.
Barney confirmed that the person who stabbed him was the
Cite as 

 (2021)                            589

same woman he had seen following the shirtless man earlier in the evening. Kaber asked him if he recognized defendant’s name, and he responded that he knew the name only.
         Defendant ultimately was charged with a number of
crimes for the stabbing of Barney and Pelletier. The defense
theory at trial was that someone other than defendant
was responsible for the stabbings and that defendant was
misidentified as the suspect. Consistent with that theory,
defendant moved to exclude the eyewitness identifications
by Phillip and Xavier as unreliable, arguing that the state
had not met the evidentiary requirements for admissibility under State v. Lawson/James, 

, 

(2012), including establishing that the witnesses identifications were based on their personal knowledge, OEC 602, or
were rationally based on their first-hand perceptions, OEC
701.
         Kaber testified at the pretrial hearing on defendant’s motion. In addition to the events described above,
Kaber explained that, when he arrived at the home, the
scene was chaotic, but that Phillip and Xavier were “very
cool, very even.” Kaber explained that “[t]here was some
alcohol involved” but not “anything that [he] thought was
in excess.” Kaber noted that it was dark out that night and
that the single streetlamp on the road did not provide any
ambient light where the incident occurred. He explained
that Phillip’s home is “pretty dark” because it sits on a corner and that “most of the light provided was out of the one
light that was on the porch of [Phillip’s] home.”
         Kaber also testified that, about 20 minutes before
Rich called the police, a man, Brown, had also called the
police to report that defendant had tried to stab him with a
fork. Kaber spoke to Brown, who confirmed that he was at
defendant’s home when the fight with defendant broke out.
Although Brown couldn’t recall the exact address, Kaber
ultimately determined that the home was located a few
homes away from Phillip’s house. Brown also confirmed that
defendant had been chasing him down the street and that
he was shirtless and carrying a backpack.
        Deputy Randall also testified. On the night of the
incident, Randall went to defendant’s home and spoke to her
590                                                State v. Allen

father, Allen. Allen told him that about 10 minutes before
the ambulance showed up down the street, defendant had
walked into the house and told him that “a guy had put
hands on her and that she had stabbed him.”
         In response to defendant’s challenge to the admission of the identification evidence, the state first argued that
Lawson/James did “not apply in this situation,” because,
unlike in that case, which focused on suggestive police conduct in the process of obtaining a name for a suspect, here
the officers had received the name of the suspect before
any police action. The state further argued that, in any
event, even if Lawson/James did apply, the state had met
its burden to prove the admissibility of the identifications
by Phillip and Xavier and defendant had failed to show that
the probative value of those identifications was substantially
outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice because they
were corroborated by Brown and defendant’s father.
        Defendant responded that the Lawson/James
test did apply and that the state had failed to establish
the admissibility of Phillip’s and Xavier’s identifications.
Defendant argued that the state had failed to establish
that the “linking of [defendant’s] photograph with what
they actually saw” was reliable and based on their own personal observations or perceptions. According to defendant,
because neither Phillip nor Xavier actually came up with
defendant’s name but, rather, an unnamed person in the
group did, it is unknown whether their identifications were
based on their perceptions or on “hearsay” from the group
discussion. Further, defendant contended that Kaber showing two single photographs of defendant while Phillip and
Xavier were standing next to one another was suggestive.
Defendant also argued that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair
prejudice because, given its unreliability, its probative value
was low, and that the witnesses’ statements that they were
“95 percent” certain that defendant was the assailant had
potential to influence and mislead the jury.
         The trial court orally ruled that
   “the fact pattern in this case does not fit within the framework that is in [the Lawson/James line of] cases and so
Cite as 

 (2021)                                         591

   the Court’s ruling is that [Lawson/James does not] apply.
   And accepting the State’s argument that even … if it does
   apply, that the State has met their burden.”
Following its oral ruling, the court issued written findings
of fact and an order denying defendant’s motion. The court
found that the “witnesses all had an adequate opportunity
to perceive … and did perceive” defendant when she came
back to the house to confront them, and that Barney saw her
when she stabbed him. The court further found that their
identifications were based on their own perceptions and not
based on suggestive police procedures. Regarding OEC 403
balancing, the written findings stated:
       “[U]nder Lawson, the court must do an OEC 403 balancing test to determine if the probative value of the evidence
   is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The state
   argued that in light of all of the other evidence establishing that the defendant was the person who stabbed the two
   victims, the probative value of the introduction of the identification testimony would not be substantially outweighed
   by any risk of unfair prejudice.”
The written order concluded, again, that Lawson/James did
not apply but, even if it did, “the state has satisfied its burden for the admission of the identification evidence.”
         The case proceeded to a jury trial. Pelletier and
Xavier did not testify. Phillip testified that the woman in the
photos that Kaber showed him on the night of the incident
was the same woman who had approached and confronted
the group before Barney and Pelletier were stabbed and that
he had “no doubt” that defendant was that same woman.
Kaber testified that he showed Phillip and Xavier photos
of defendant and that they both confirmed that she was the
person who they believed had stabbed Barney and Pelletier.
Finally, Barney testified that defendant was the woman
who had stabbed him. As noted, the jury unanimously found
defendant guilty of second-degree assault (Count 3) and
UUW (Count 5) related to the stabbing of Barney, and guilty
by nonunanimous verdict of first-degree assault (Count 4)
and UUW (Count 6) for the stabbing of Pelletier.3

    3
      The jury found defendant not guilty of two counts of attempted murder
(Counts 1 and 2).
592                                                            State v. Allen

         In reviewing admission of the identification evidence, we begin with a brief overview of Lawson/James, in
which the Supreme Court established the framework for
determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification
evidence. In Lawson/James, the court explains that “when
a criminal defendant files a pretrial motion to exclude eyewitness identification evidence, the state—as the proponent
of the eyewitness identification—must establish all preliminary facts necessary to establish admissibility” under
the applicable provisions of the Oregon Evidence Code. 

. If the pretrial challenge implicates OEC 6024 or
OEC 701,5 it is the state’s burden to provide “proof under
OEC 602 that the proffered eyewitness has personal knowledge of the matters to which the witness will testify, and
proof under OEC 701 that any identification is both rationally based on the witness’s first-hand perceptions and helpful to the trier of fact.” 

. If the state satisfies
its burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove
“under OEC 403[6] that, although the eyewitness evidence is
otherwise admissible, the probative value of the evidence is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.” 

. If the defendant meets that burden,
the court has discretion to either exclude the identification
or implement another remedy short of exclusion. 

         Lawson/James set forth two categories of factors
that affect the reliability, and thus probative value, of eyewitness identification evidence: estimator variables and
    4
      OEC 602 provides:
         “Subject to the provisions of Rule 703 (ORS 40.415), a witness may not
    testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a
    finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to
    prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the
    witness.”
    5
      OEC 701 states that the testimony of a nonexpert witness must be “[r]ationally based on the perception of the witness” and “[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony of the witness or the determination of a fact in issue.”
    6
      OEC 403 provides:
         “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
    substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
    issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless
    presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Cite as 

 (2021)                             593

system variables. Estimator variables are the “characteristics of the witness, the alleged perpetrator, and the environmental conditions of the event that cannot be manipulated
or adjusted by state actors.” Id. at 740. Estimator variables
include the witness’s level of stress; the witness’s attention;
the duration of exposure; environmental viewing conditions; the witness’s physical and mental characteristics; the
witness’s description of the perpetrator; the perpetrator’s
characteristics; the speed of the identification; the witness’s
confidence or certainty (which is not a reliable indicator of
accuracy); and memory decay. Id. at 744-46.
          System variables are the “circumstances surrounding the identification procedure itself that are generally
within the control of those administering the procedure.”
Id. at 740. System variables include factors such as whether
the identification procedure was conducted by a person
who was unaware of the suspect’s identity; whether preidentification instructions were given to reduce the likelihood of misidentification; the method used to construct and
administer the photograph lineup to the witness; whether
multiple viewings of the suspect led to source confusion;
whether suggestive wording or leading questions by investigators contaminated the witness’s memory; and whether
post-identification confirming feedback falsely inflated the
witness’s confidence in the accuracy of his or her identification. Id. at 741-44.
         On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court
erred in three ways when it failed to exclude Phillip’s
and Xavier’s out-of-court identifications of defendant and
Phillip’s in-court identification. First, according to defendant, the court erred when it ruled that the Lawson/James
analysis did not apply because it applies when, as here, the
state administers suggestive pretrial procedures.
         Second, defendant argues that the court erred when
it alternatively ruled that the state had met its burden to
establish the admissibility of the eyewitness identifications
under OEC 602 and OEC 701. Defendant notes that Phillip
and Xavier did not testify at the hearing, and Kaber testified to only the “bare facts.” Regarding OEC 602, defendant
contends that Kaber’s testimony did not establish facts from
594                                                        State v. Allen

which a jury could find that Phillip and Xavier had an adequate opportunity to observe, and did observe, the woman in
the street so that they could identify her based on their personal knowledge. Specifically, defendant asserts that there
was no evidence to establish that they had a good view of the
woman because the street was poorly lit; there was no evidence
presented that the porch light was on or how long or carefully Phillip and Xavier observed the woman; Phillip’s vague
description of the woman and Xavier’s lack of any description
indicates that they did not “pay that much attention to any
identifying characteristics”; and Kaber’s testimony indicated
that Phillip and Xavier might have been intoxicated.
          Regarding OEC 701, defendant argues that the state
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance that Phillip’s and Xavier’s identifications were
rationally based on their own perceptions rather than on a
suggestive identification procedure. According to defendant,
the identification procedure was suggestive because Kaber’s
presentation of defendant’s photos was akin to the inherently suggestive “suspect show-up” procedure. See Lawson/
James, 

 (defining a “showup” as presenting
an eyewitness with a single suspect for identification and
noting that showups are “generally regarded as inherently
suggestive—and therefore less reliable”). Compounding the
procedure’s suggestiveness, defendant continues, are the
facts that Phillip and Xavier had already decided from their
conversation with the group that defendant was the woman
whom they had seen earlier; before being shown the photographs, Kaber “readily accepted” that group identification
when he showed the men only photographs of defendant and
no other potential suspects; and Phillip and Xavier viewed
the photographs and made the identifications together.
Thus, according to defendant, because the state failed to
adduce sufficient facts that Phillip’s and Xavier’s personal
observations were sufficient to identify defendant, and
given the highly suggestive identification procedure used,
the state did not meet its burden to establish the admissibility of their out-of-court eyewitness identifications.7 And,
    7
      Defendant does not challenge that the eyewitness identifications would
be helpful to the jury as required under OEC 701, obviating the need for us to
address that part of the analysis.
Cite as 

 (2021)                             595

defendant continues, because Phillip’s in-court identification
relied on his pretrial identification, it was similarly unreliable under OEC 602 and OEC 701.
         Third, defendant argues that the trial court erred
when it failed to conduct the requisite OEC 403 balancing and, as an alternative to his other requested remedies,
asks for a limited remand to allow the court to conduct the
balancing.
          The state responds that the trial court did not err
in ruling that the Lawson/James test does not apply. Before
the trial court, the state argued that Lawson/James was not
implicated because Kaber had received defendant’s name
from the witnesses before police contact and not as a result
of any suggestive police conduct. On appeal, adjusting its
argument, the state’s view is that Phillip and Xavier knew
defendant and that the only identification problem was “in
attaching a name” to defendant’s face, which is “not the sort
of eyewitness identification that is subject to the Lawson/
James analysis.” (Emphasis in state’s brief.) In the state’s
view, it is “completely irrelevant” whether a witness knows
a suspect’s name if the witnesses can positively identify the
person as the suspect. In any event, the state contends, even
if Lawson/James applies, the trial court did not err in ruling that it met its burden to establish the admissibility of
the eyewitness identifications. The state does not respond to
defendant’s argument that the court failed to conduct OEC
403 balancing.
         Although we conclude that the trial court erred in
ruling that the Lawson/James test did not apply, we nonetheless conclude that the state met its burden to establish
that the eyewitness identifications were based on the witness’s personal observations and perceptions. We further
conclude that, contrary to defendant’s argument, the record
establishes that the trial court conducted the required OEC
403 balancing.
        We begin with the applicability of the Lawson/
James framework. The state’s argument before the trial
court was that, when the police obtain a suspect’s name
from a witness, the eyewitness identification precedes police
questioning or state-administered identification procedures
596                                            State v. Allen

and, thus, as we understand it, cannot be the result of suggestive police procedures implicating the Lawson/James
test. However, that view misunderstands the test.
          Eyewitness identification evidence is the function
of two variables—memory and perception—and the focus of
the Lawson/James framework is on determining the reliability of the eyewitness identification. See Lawson/James,

 (looking to “scientific knowledge and empirical research concerning eyewitness perception and memory” to establish the framework for assessing the reliability and admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence).
Regarding memory, the concern with eyewitness identifications is that a witness’s original memory of an event may
be tainted by some other source, thus rendering the identification unreliable. See 

 (“[O]nce contaminated,
a witness’s original memory is very difficult to retrieve; it
is, however, only the original memory that has any forensic
or evidentiary value.”). Although suggestive police conduct
is one source of memory contamination, it is not the only
source identified in Lawson/James. See 

 (“[M]any
of the reliability concerns surrounding eyewitness identification evidence stem from the basic premise that eyewitness testimony can be led or prompted by suggestive identification procedures, suggestive questioning, and/or memory
contamination from other sources.” (Emphasis added.)); 

 (explaining that one source of memory contamination is the way in which witnesses may “converse about
an event”); see also Christian Sheehan, Making the Jurors
the ‘Experts’: The Case for Eyewitness Identification Jury
Instructions, 52 B. C. L. Rev. 651, 653 (2011) (“Many inaccurate identifications are caused not by any police actions,
however, but rather by psychological factors that affect
perception and memory.”). In fact, as we have previously
explained:
   “In Lawson/James, the court held that the threshold
   inquiry from Classen—whether there had been suggestive police procedures—was unnecessary as a preliminary
   and independent inquiry: ‘There is no reason to hinder
   the analysis of eyewitness reliability with purposeless
   distinctions between suggestiveness and other sources of
   unreliability.’ ”
Cite as 

 (2021)                            597

State v. Wesley, 

, 

, rev den,

 (2013) (quoting Lawson/James, 

).
Thus, whether the police involvement in this case could
be considered suggestive is not the dispositive question in
determining whether to apply the test outlined in Lawson/
James. Whether a particular case involves suggestive police
conduct, and, if so, how it might have affected the witness’s memory, is simply one factor the court must consider in determining the admissibility of the eyewitness
identification evidence—it is not a prerequisite to applying
the Lawson/James test. See State v. Hickman, 

, 

 (2014), cert den, 

 (2015)
(applying Lawson/James test in determining the admissibility of in-court identifications where there was “no suggestive pretrial procedures” or any attempt to have the witnesses identify the suspect before trial).
          The state’s argument on appeal is somewhat different, and we address it only briefly. We understand the state
to argue that the Lawson/James framework is not implicated
because the witnesses knew defendant and, thus, the identification evidence was not memory-based. We reject that
argument. Defendant’s motion to exclude the eyewitness
identifications raises a number of challenges to the identifications’ reliability, including whether they were based on
Phillip’s and Xavier’s personal knowledge, OEC 602, or their
own perceptions, OEC 701, or were adversely impacted by
co-witness contamination, suggestive identification procedures, or environmental conditions surrounding the event.
Those challenges are precisely the type of issues that implicate the Lawson/James test. See Lawson/James, 

 (explaining that, when “an issue raised in a pretrial
challenge to eyewitness identification evidence specifically
implicates OEC 602 or OEC 701,” it is the state’s burden
to establish the foundational facts required under OEC 602
and OEC 701). What effect the witness’s familiarity with
the suspect has on the reliability of the identification, like
whether suggestive police procedures were used, is simply
one of the many factors to consider in assessing the reliability of the eyewitness identification. See State v. Calia,

, 

 (1973), cert den, 

 (1974) (concluding that the defendant’s proposed
598                                                           State v. Allen

eyewitness instruction, which included instructing the
jury that it should consider the witness’s familiarity with
the defendant, to be a correct statement of the law); United
States v. Telfaire, 469 F2d 552, 558 (DC Cir 1972) (providing
example of eyewitness-identification jury instruction that
includes considering “whether the witness had had occasion
to see or know the person in the past”); State v. Ollison, 

, 

 (1974) (referring to Calia, 

, and Telfaire, 469 F2d 552, as examples of correct eyewitness-identification jury instructions). Therefore,
the trial court erred in ruling that the Lawson/James test
did not apply.
          Nonetheless, we conclude that the state met its
burden to establish the foundational admissibility requirements, the first step in the Lawson/James test. Beginning
with defendant’s OEC 602 challenge, the state presented sufficient facts to permit a reasonable juror to find that Phillip
and Xavier made the observations necessary to identify
defendant from the photos. The evidence showed that, while
Barney and Pelletier were arguing with defendant on the
front porch, Phillip and Xavier were standing on the porch
next to Barney and Pelletier and “close” to the confrontation, and that the woman was standing “right there” at the
steps of the front porch. That evidence allows an inference
that Phillip and Xavier were close enough to view the woman’s facial and physical features. See Lawson/James, 

 (“[W]itnesses were face-to-face with the perpetrators
and had clear opportunities to observe their features[.]”).
         Further, based on those close-range observations,
Phillip provided Kaber with a relatively thorough physical
description of defendant shortly after the incident, including
that she was between 5'5'' and 5'7'', weighed 170 pounds,
and was wearing a dark gray or black hooded sweatshirt
and jeans.8 See Lawson/James, 

 (“Accurate
identifications generally tend to be made faster than inaccurate identifications.”); State v. Collins, 

, 

 (2013) (accepting the trial court’s finding
that a “complete description” was provided, which included
the suspect’s “race, stature, and hair color”); but see Lawson/
   8
       Defendant does not challenge the accuracy of that physical description.
Cite as 

 (2021)                              599

James, 

 (“Contrary to a common misconception, there is little correlation between a witness’s ability to
describe a person and the witness’s ability to later identify
that person.”). Although Phillip also described the woman
as “Native American,” he provided no detail about what specific facial or physical features he was intending to identify
with that descriptor and, in these circumstances, we do not
rely on that aspect of his description in our analysis. See
Lawson/James, 

 (“[N]onfacial features like
race, height, weight, clothing, or hair color, generally lack
the level of distinction necessary to permit the witness to
identify a specific person as the person whom the witness
saw.”). And, although the scene was chaotic, Kaber testified that Phillip and Xavier were “very cool, very even.”
The record is therefore sufficient to support the trial court’s
factual determination that the witnesses had an adequate
opportunity to perceive and did perceive the facts necessary
to support their identifications of defendant.
          Defendant challenges Phillip’s and Xavier’s ability
to personally observe the woman at the stairs because it was
dark out and, she contends, there was no evidence that the
porch light was on. That is one way to view the evidence—
but it is not the only way to view it. Kaber testified that
“most of the light provided was out of the one light that was
on the porch of [Phillip’s] home.” Although there was no evidence indicating with certainty that the light was on at the
time of the events, Kaber’s testimony allows for an inference
that it was. Defendant also argues that Phillip and Xavier
might have been drinking. However, Kaber’s testimony
that, although there “was some alcohol involved,” it was not
“anything that [he] thought was in excess,” supports the
trial court’s implicit finding that alcohol did not adversely
affect their personal observations. Defendant further contends that there was no evidence establishing how long or
how carefully Phillip and Xavier had observed the woman
at the stairs. Although there was no evidence presented in
that regard, the evidence that was presented, including that
they were standing “close” to the woman during the confrontation and that Phillip provided a relatively thorough
description of the woman shortly after the incident, was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Phillip and Xavier had
600                                            State v. Allen

personal knowledge of defendant’s identity. See Hickman,

 (“[A]n identification satisfies OEC 602 if the
eyewitness testifies to facts that, if believed, would permit
a reasonable juror to find that the eyewitness observed the
facts necessary to make the identification.”).
         As for the OEC 701 inquiry, we conclude that the
state met its burden to show that the witnesses’ identifications were rationally based on their own perceptions.
Defendant argues that the police showup used in this case
was inherently suggestive. Although a photo showup like the
one Kaber used is generally problematic and can be inherently suggestive, we conclude that it was not so here. First,
because the witnesses provided defendant’s name to the
9-1-1 operator, Kaber was not communicating to Phillip and
Xavier whom the police had targeted in the pursuit of identifying a suspect, which is the primary concern with showups. See Lawson/James, 

 (“Showups are widely
regarded as inherently suggestive—and therefore less reliable than properly administered lineup identifications—
because the witness is always aware of who police officers
have targeted as a suspect.” (Emphasis added.)). Rather,
Kaber showed Phillip and Xavier a photo of the woman to
verify that the police were apprehending the correct person whom the witnesses believed was the suspect. Second,
the showup here was done shortly after the incident, which
makes it more likely to be reliable. See 

 (“A showup
is most likely to be reliable when it occurs immediately after
the witness has observed a criminal perpetrator in action
because the benefit of a fresh memory outweighs the inherent suggestiveness of the procedure.”). Third, even assuming
that defendant’s name was first spoken by a co-witness other
than Phillip or Xavier, other factors allow for the inference
that their identifications were nonetheless based on their
own perceptions, including that Phillip provided a physical
description of the suspect after the incident independent
of the suspect’s name, which included her height, weight,
and clothing; they had a close view of the suspect’s face; and
Phillip and Xavier had seen defendant in the neighborhood
before and had some familiarity with her.
         Further, Phillip’s and Xavier’s identifications were
corroborated by other evidence establishing defendant as
Cite as 

 (2021)                               601

the perpetrator. First, in a phone call to the police 20 minutes before the 9-1-1 call, Brown reported that defendant
had been involved in another confrontation nearby, which
confirmed defendant’s presence in the neighborhood. In
addition, Brown’s report that defendant was chasing him
down the street in the neighborhood while he was shirtless
and carrying a backpack corroborated certain details that
Phillip and Xavier provided to the police about the events
leading up to the stabbing, as well as defendant’s identity.
Second, the record established that, 10 minutes before the
ambulance arrived, defendant walked into her home and
told her father that “a guy had put hands on her and that
she had stabbed him,” further corroborating Phillip’s and
Xavier’s identifications of defendant as the perpetrator.
Thus, the accuracy of Phillip’s and Xavier’s photo identification of defendant as the woman who had confronted them
earlier and whom they believed had stabbed the victims
was corroborated by other evidence. See Lawson/James, 

; 767 (concluding that details provided by the
eyewitnesses, including items stolen and found on suspects,
and the suspect’s clothing, confirmed their identifications);
Collins, 

 (concluding that the defendant’s
response to the police when they told him that they planned
to show the victim a photo of the defendant corroborated
the victim’s identification of the defendant where he stated,
“ ‘Of course [the victim] will recognize me. I was there.’ ”). As
such, the state met its burden to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the witnesses’ out-of-court identifications
were based on their personal knowledge, OEC 602, and perceptions, OEC 701. Because defendant’s argument regarding the unreliability of Phillip’s in-court identification rests
entirely on the asserted unreliability of the out-of-court
identification, we come to the same conclusion regarding
Phillip’s in-court identification. Therefore, the trial court
did not err in concluding that the state met its burden to
establish the reliability of the identifications.
        We turn next to the second step under the Lawson/
James framework—the required OEC 403 balancing. Defendant does not argue that the trial court abused its discretion in conducting the OEC 403 balancing test. Rather,
defendant argues that the trial court failed to conduct any
602                                              State v. Allen

balancing at all. We disagree. The trial court’s written
findings, viewed in light of the parties’ arguments, reflect
that the court conducted OEC 403 balancing. See State v.
Anderson, 

, 

 (2018) (“A court will
make a sufficient record [of balancing the OEC 403 factors]
if the trial court’s ruling, considered in light of the parties’
arguments, demonstrates that the court balanced the appropriate considerations.”).
         In defendant’s memorandum to the trial court, she
argued that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
because the identifications were unreliable and the witnesses statements that they were “95 percent” certain of
defendant’s identity had potential to influence and mislead
the jury. Before the presentation of evidence at the pretrial
hearing, the trial court sought clarification on who had the
burden of proof, and defendant responded, “once the State
meets [its] burden[ ] under 602 and 701, then the burden
shifts for prejudice.” Further, during the pretrial hearing,
defendant alerted the court that she had concerns about
the state eliciting testimony on the substance of Brown’s
conflict with defendant. The state responded that it was
trying to “discount[ ] the 403 issue over the prejudicial. I
think it is important to find out what the officers did with
the information they had to confirm that this identification was correct … in anticipation of the 403 argument.”
The court allowed the testimony. Additionally, defendant
later objected to the state eliciting testimony about defendant’s inculpatory statements to her father after the stabbings. The state responded that the evidence goes “to the
403 weighing test that must be done.” The court overruled
the objection. Lastly, during argument, the state contended
that “the 403 balancing test would be in favor of the State
… because there is the external evidence to confirm these
identifications.” Specifically, the state argued, “[w]e had the
call that came in prior regarding … Brown, he confirmed
that he was the guy that had his shirt off, he was being
chased by [defendant]; we have the statements from the
father.”
        The court’s written findings and order noted that
it “must do an OEC 403 balancing test to determine if the
Cite as 

 (2021)                             603

probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed
by unfair prejudice.” It further referenced the state’s argument that “in light of all of the other evidence establishing
that the defendant was the person who stabbed the two victims, the probative value of the introduction of the identification testimony would not be substantially outweighed by
any risk of unfair prejudice.”
         The record shows that the trial court conducted
OEC 403 balancing. Defendant argued that the eyewitness identifications had little probative value because they
were unreliable and identified prejudicial risks of the evidence. See Lawson/James, 

 (nothing that the
persuasive force, or probative value, of eyewitness identification testimony is directly linked to its reliability). The
state disagreed, highlighting that the eyewitness identifications were corroborated by other evidence. Further, the
court’s written order expressly noted that it was required
to conduct an OEC 403 balancing, and it identified the correct legal standard and the state’s argument regarding the
probative nature of the evidence. We acknowledge that the
court’s written order does not expressly identify the unfairly
prejudicial effect of the evidence or how it balanced the relevant OEC 403 factors, and it refers to the state satisfying
its burden for the admission of the identification evidence
where defendant has the burden under OEC 403. However,
on this record, in light of the parties’ arguments, its written
findings and order establish that the court conducted OEC
403 balancing. See Anderson, 

 (“[I]n assessing the sufficiency of a trial court’s explanation of its OEC
403 ruling, appellate courts should consider the trial court’s
ruling in light of the arguments that the parties made on
the merits of the issues raised by an OEC 403 objection, as
well as whether either party asked the court to provide a
more complete explanation of its ruling.”). As noted, because
defendant does not argue that the trial court abused its discretion in conducting OEC 403 balancing, we do not address
the merits of the balancing.
        We turn to defendant’s third assignment, in which
she argues that the trial court erred in failing to give her
requested jury instruction on eyewitness identification evidence. We review “a trial court’s refusal to give a requested
604                                             State v. Allen

jury instruction for errors of law.” State v. McNally, 

, 

 (2017). “In determining whether evidence supports giving the defendant’s proposed instruction,
we view the facts in the light most favorable to giving that
instruction.” State v. Roberts, 

, 

 (2018). Further, in assessing the harmlessness of any
error, we look to the trial record as a whole. State v. Prieto-Rubio, 

, 

 (2014), aff’d, 

, 

 (2016). We provide the following facts
accordingly.
         During trial, defendant contested the sufficiency
of the evidence to establish that she was the person who
had stabbed the victims. The parties focused their witness
examinations and arguments on the circumstances surrounding the identifications of defendant by Phillip, Xavier,
and Barney. Although that evidence was largely consistent
with the evidence that was developed at the pretrial hearing, it was more developed on certain legal points. Kaber’s
testimony, for example, established the timeline of events:
he was dispatched to the home at 9:39 p.m. and arrived at
10:04 p.m., and he departed for the hospital at 11:10 p.m.
Kaber also confirmed that defendant lived on the same block
as Phillip.
          Phillip’s more developed or varying testimony
included that he had not been drinking; that the confrontation at the porch lasted one and a half to two minutes; that
he could see the woman very clearly during the confrontation because his porch is “really, really small” with “three
little tiny steps,” and she was standing three to four feet
away from him; and that, although his street is dark, his
porch light is bright. Further, although he recalled giving
Kaber a physical description of the woman on the night of
the incident, he could not recall the details that he provided
to him; he acknowledged that someone else in the group who
he could not recall had suggested defendant’s name after
the incident, but he nonetheless recognized the woman’s face
because he knew she had been staying next door and had
“seen her walking up and down the street a few times”; after
Kaber showed him and Xavier defendant’s photograph, they
were both “95 percent sure” it was the same woman, and he
had “no doubt” that defendant was the same woman.
Cite as 

 (2021)                             605

         Barney’s testimony also was more developed at
trial. He testified that he was intoxicated on the night of the
incident; that when he and Pelletier had followed the couple to ensure the woman’s safety, she became upset and an
argument ensued, which continued until the three arrived
at Phillip’s front porch; that the porch light was on; that
during that argument, which lasted a total of two to four
minutes, Barney ended up face-to-face with the woman—
who at this point he recognized but did not know her
name—and he pushed her to the ground twice. Further, he
testified to being six to eight inches taller than the woman;
that someone other than Barney first suggested defendant’s
name after the group left the porch and went back inside the
home; that Barney went back outside and got into a second
confrontation with the woman and, while standing face-toface, she stabbed him; that, at the time she stabbed him, he
had no doubt that it was the same woman from the earlier
confrontation because, although she was wearing a black
hoodie with the hood up, he could still see her face and he
recognized the white design on the black sweatshirt; and
that he knew her face because he had seen it before, including in photos with his brothers. After being shown Kaber’s
police report to refresh his memory, Barney testified, “I’m
pretty, I’m positive [the woman] said … something about
putting your hands on a woman or I think that was all that
was really said,” which he understood to be a reference to
when he pushed her.
         The court excluded any details of Brown’s call but
allowed Kaber to testify that a separate 9-1-1 call had
come in involving defendant, the time of that call, and that
defendant’s address in the neighborhood was subsequently
located. Defendant’s inculpatory statements to her father
did not come in at trial.
         During closing argument, both the state and defendant focused on the evidence surrounding the reliability of identifications of defendant as the perpetrator by
Phillip, Xavier, and Barney. Defendant argued that, in considering the weight to give to the eyewitness statements,
the jurors should consider the witnesses’ “unfamiliarity
with [defendant], but also the environment.” Defendant
emphasized that the scene was chaotic, it was dark out,
606                                             State v. Allen

the street was poorly lit, and that both Phillip and Barney
received defendant’s name from someone else in the group.
Regarding Phillip, defendant challenged his ability to sufficiently see the assailant during the confrontation before
the stabbing because of the distance between the two at the
porch. Regarding Barney, defendant challenged his ability to observe his assailant, arguing that her hood was up
during the final confrontation; Barney had been drinking,
which affects a person’s judgment and memory; he was emotional from the confrontation; and the angle between the
two was “not face-to-face” because Barney is taller than
the woman. Defendant challenged the amount of time that
Barney and Phillip had to observe the woman, arguing that
each confrontation happened quickly. Defendant also challenged Kaber’s photo-presentation procedure, noting that
Phillip learned defendant’s name from the group before he
viewed the photos, and then Kaber, having received defendant’s name as the suspect, showed Phillip a single photo of
defendant instead of multiple photos of potential suspects.
Defendant asked the jurors to think about whether “what
came out of both [Barney’s and Phillip’s] mouth[s were] from
their own thought process, from their own witnessing, from
their own piecing things together and not from somebody
else that gave them the name.”
        The parties discussed how the jury should be
instructed. Defendant requested a special jury instruction
regarding eyewitness identification testimony, citing
Lawson/James, 

. Defendant’s requested jury
instruction is the Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury
Instruction 4.11 Eyewitness Identification (MCJI 4.11), and
states:
     “You have heard testimony of eyewitness identification.
  In deciding how much weight to give to this testimony,
  you may consider the various factors mentioned in these
  instructions concerning credibility of witnesses.
     “In addition to those factors, in evaluating eyewitness
  identification testimony, you may also consider:
     “(1) the capacity and opportunity of the eyewitness
  to observe the offender based upon the length of time for
  observation and the conditions at the time of observation,
  including lighting and distance;
Cite as 

 (2021)                                               607

       “(2) whether the identification was the product of the
    eyewitness’s own recollection or was the result of subsequent influence or suggestiveness;
       “(3) any inconsistent identifications made by the eyewitness;
        “(4)   the witness’s familiarity with the subject identified;
        “(5)   the strength of earlier and later identifications;
       “(6) lapses of time between the event and the identification[s]; and
       “(7) the totality of circumstances surrounding the eyewitness’s identification.”

        Defendant argued that the standard jury instruction for assessing eyewitness testimony was not specific
enough and that her requested special instruction would
help the jury understand how to assess eyewitness identification evidence. The state responded that the jury instruction was inappropriate because the Lawson/James framework did not apply and that the instruction amounts to an
improper comment on the evidence.9 The court denied defendant’s request, concluding that, although it “was a close
issue” and the requested instruction was “neutral,” it was
unnecessary.
        Upon agreement of the parties, the court provided
several uniform jury instructions (UCrJI) to guide the jury
on how to evaluate the evidence. The court instructed on
UCrJI 1006, evaluating witness testimony, which states:
        “The term ‘witness’ includes every person who has testified under oath in this case. Every witness has taken an

     9
       The state also alerted the court that the comment to the MCJI 4.11 Ninth
Circuit jury instruction “recommended against giving of an eyewitness identification instruction.” However, we note that that MCJI 4.11 comment no longer
contains that recommendation. See Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee,
Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Ninth
Circuit § 4.11 cmt. (2010) (approved June 2019); United States v. Valencia-Cortez,
769 F Appx 419, 422 (9th Cir 2019) (explaining that the court was “troubled by
the comment” to the MCJI 4.11, which recommends “ ‘against the giving of an
eyewitness identification instruction,’ ” and “encourage[d] the Jury Instructions
Committee to reassess their comment as it is inconsistent with legal precedent
and growing scientific evidence”).
608                                                State v. Allen

   oath to tell the truth. In evaluating each witness’s testimony, however, you may consider such things as:
      “(1)   The manner in which the witness testifies.
      “(2)   The nature or quality of the witness’s testimony.
      “(3) Evidence that contradicts the testimony of the
   witness.
       “(4) Evidence concerning the bias, motives, or interest
   of the witness.”
(Emphasis in original.) The court also instructed on UCrJI
1008 and UCrJI 1025. UCrJI 1008, inferences, states:
      “In deciding this case you may draw inferences and
   reach conclusions from the evidence, if your inferences and
   conclusions are reasonable and are based on your common
   sense and experience.”
UCrJI 1025, direct and circumstantial evidence, provides:
       “There are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence—such as the testimony of an eyewitness. The other
   is circumstantial evidence—the proof of a chain of circumstances pointing to the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact. You may base your verdict on direct evidence or
   on circumstantial evidence.”
         Additionally, consistent with the “Functions of the
Court and Jury” instruction, the court explained that the
jury “must evaluate the evidence to determine how reliable
or how believable that evidence is,” and that, in “deciding
this case, you are to consider all the evidence you find worthy of belief.” Further, the court stated, “It is your duty to
weigh the evidence calmly and dispassionately and to decide
this case on its merits,” and not based on “bias, sympathy, or
prejudice.” Finally, the court instructed that “the testimony
of any witness whom you believe is sufficient to prove any
fact in dispute. You are not simply to count the witnesses,
but you are to weigh the evidence.”
        After the court instructed the jury, defendant
objected to the court’s failure to give MCJI 4.11.
         On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court
erred in failing to give her special jury instruction because it
Cite as 

 (2021)                                  609

accurately stated the law and the evidence supported giving
it; she contends that failure to give the instruction, which
would have helped the jury assess the evidence related to
the critical issue in the case—defendant’s identification—
likely affected the verdict. The state counters that, even if
defendant’s proposed instruction was a correct statement of
the law and it would have been permissible for the court to
give it, the instruction was not necessary. The state argues
that the factors listed in defendant’s proposed instruction
were “common-sense considerations that jurors might choose
to apply in the consideration of a witness’s testimony,” that
the uniform instructions the court gave “covered the same
ground,” and that defendant could argue the same factors to
the jury.
         A party is generally entitled to a jury instruction on
the law that supports that party’s theory of the case when
“(1) there is evidence to support that theory and (2) the
requested instruction is a correct statement of the law.” State
v. Harryman, 

, 

, rev den,

 (2016).
   “However, a trial court does not err in refusing to give a
   proposed instruction—even if legally correct—if the substance of the requested instruction is covered fully by other
   jury instructions given by the trial court or if the requested
   instruction is not necessary to explain the particular issue
   or point of law to the jury.”
Id. at 356 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to give
defendant’s requested jury instruction.
          Beginning with whether the facts supported giving
the instruction, we readily conclude that they did. Defendant
challenged the witness identifications based on a number
of factors related to the reliability of the identification evidence, including that Phillip’s, Xavier’s, and Barney’s memories of the event could have been contaminated by their discussions with the group and, regarding Phillip and Xavier,
that Kaber’s identification procedure was problematic, and
that their perceptions of the event were adversely impacted
due to environmental factors surrounding the event, including that the street was dark and alcohol was involved. The
610                                              State v. Allen

parties elicited evidence addressing those challenges and,
viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, the record permitted the jury to conclude that certain
factors called into question the reliability of the identifications. The record supported giving the instruction.
         We further conclude that defendant’s proposed
instruction was a correct statement of the law. The instruction provided the jury with factors to consider when assessing the weight of the eyewitness identification evidence,
including: (1) the “capacity and opportunity of the eyewitness to observe the offender based upon the length of time for
observation and the conditions at the time of observation”;
(2) “whether the identification was the product of the eyewitness’s own recollection or was the result of subsequent influence or suggestiveness”; (3) “any inconsistent identifications
made by the eyewitness”; (4) “the witness’s familiarity with
the subject identified”; (5) “the strength of earlier and later
identifications”; (6) “lapses of time between the event and
the identifications[s]”; and (7) “the totality of circumstances
surrounding the eyewitness’s identification.” Factors (1), (2),
and (6) substantively mirrored the system and estimator
variables identified in Lawson/James as relevant to assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. See
Lawson/James, 

 (discussing system variables that are relevant to determining whether an identification was the product of the eyewitness’s own recollection
or was the result of subsequent influence of suggestiveness,
including various suggestive eyewitness-identification procedures or post-identification events; discussing estimator
variables that are relevant to a witness’s capacity and opportunity to perceive a suspect, including the duration of exposure and environmental viewing conditions; and discussing
estimator variables that are relevant to considerations of
the lapse of time between the event and the identification,
including the speed of the identification and memory decay).
Therefore, those factors are a correct statement of the law.
See also Calia, 

 (concluding that those
factors, in largely the same form, were a correct statement
of the law).
         Further, although factor (4) is not explicitly addressed
in Lawson/James, a witness’s familiarity with a suspect is
Cite as 

 (2021)                              611

relevant to the reliability of an eyewitness identification, as
we have discussed. If a witness has seen a suspect previously, the witness may, depending on other relevant circumstances surrounding the identification, be more able to easily identify the person at a later time, further increasing the
identification’s reliability. That factor is a correct statement
of the law. See Calia, 

 (concluding that
defendant’s proposed eyewitness instruction, which included
instructing the jury that it should consider the witness’s
familiarity with the defendant, was a correct statement of
the law).
          Lawson/James did not explicitly include factors (3),
(5), and (7) of defendant’s proposed instruction as estimator
or system variables. However, Lawson/James did not foreclose consideration of other factors that may be relevant to
determining the reliability of an eyewitness identification.
See Lawson/James, 

 (acknowledging that
the research discussed in the opinion was “not intended to
preclude any party in a specific case from validating scientific acceptance of further research or from challenging particular aspects of the research described in this opinion”).
Moreover, those factors address the relevant considerations
that were articulated more broadly in Lawson/James. In
other words, Lawson/James explained how application of
certain system or estimator variables that may be present in
a case, as applied to the broad considerations articulated in
those factors, may indicate either a reliable or an unreliable
identification. For example, if an eyewitness made a prior
inconsistent identification of a suspect, factor (3), that could
indicate that the witness’s memory of the event has been
altered by memory contamination. See, e.g., Lawson/James,

 (concluding that the victim’s “statements
over time are indicative of a memory altered by suggestion
and confirming feedback” where she was unable to identify
the defendant from a photograph following the incident but,
after she was subjected to several subsequent showings of
the defendant and leading questions regarding the defendant’s involvement in the crime, the victim ultimately identified the defendant as the perpetrator).
          Further, factor (5) instructed the jury that it could
consider “the strength of earlier and later identifications” in
612                                              State v. Allen

assessing the identification evidence. That factor was likely
communicating that, if a witness was unable to make, or
was uncertain of, an earlier identification, but then later
made or became more certain of an identification, that later
identification could be viewed with distrust if circumstances
adversely affecting the witness’s memory of the event were
present. See, e.g., Lawson/James, 

(describing variables that may affect an earlier and later
identification, including (1) viewing a suspect multiple times
throughout the course of an investigation, which may result
in the “witness’s inability to discern the source of his or her
recognition of the suspect”; (2) “[p]ost-identification confirming feedback,” which “tends to falsely inflate witnesses’
confidence in the accuracy of their identifications, as well
as their recollections concerning the quality of their opportunity to view a perpetrator and an event”; and (3) “[t]he
way in which witnesses are questioned or converse about
an event can alter their memory of the evident”). Although
factors (3) and (5) lacked clear explanations of how the system and estimator variables should be applied, for example, to assess the strength of earlier and later identifications in assessing the identification’s reliability, they were
not likely to confuse or mislead the jury. And, for the reasons previously noted, they otherwise correctly stated the
law.

          Lastly, instructing the jury that it could consider
the totality of the circumstances surrounding the identification, factor (7), correctly stated the law. As previously
explained, Lawson/James did not foreclose consideration of
other factors that may be relevant in assessing a witness’s
memory and perception of an event to evaluate the reliability of an identification, and consideration of any relevant factor would clearly be appropriate. Therefore, for all of those
reasons—and the state does not present any argument
asserting otherwise—defendant’s proposed instruction correctly stated the law.

         We next consider whether the generalized jury
instructions were sufficient to inform the jury of the variables it should consider in assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. “A defendant is not entitled,
Cite as 

 (2021)                              613

in every case, to a special instruction that is tailored to the
particular facts at issue.” Roberts, 

. “In
the end, what matters is whether the requested instruction
is necessary to adequately inform the jury of the applicable
law or to avoid confusing or misleading the jury.” 

 (internal citation omitted).

         The jury was instructed that “[i]n evaluating each
witness’s testimony,” they could consider “[t]he manner in
which the witness testifies,” “the nature or quality of the witness’s testimony,” “[e]vidence that contradicts the testimony
of the witness,” and “[e]vidence concerning the bias, motives,
or interest of the witness.” The court also instructed the jury
that it could “draw inferences and reach conclusions from
the evidence if your inferences and conclusions are reasonable and are based on your common sense and experience.”
Lastly, the jury was instructed that it could consider both
direct and circumstantial evidence.

           None of those instructions speak to the factors that
affect the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence.
In fact, although the inferences instruction tells the jurors
they may rely on their common sense, many of the assumptions related to the Lawson/James factors are contrary to
jurors’ common understandings of that type of evidence.
See, e.g., Lawson/James, 

 (explaining that
jurors “consistently tend to overvalue” the certainty variable even though it is “not a good indicator of identification
accuracy,” and “[c]ontrary to a common misconception, there
is little correlation between a witness’s ability to describe a
person and the witness’s ability to later identify that person”). Therefore, the generalized jury instructions were not
a sufficient substitute for defendant’s proposed eyewitness-identification jury instruction. See Lawson/James, 

 (“[G]eneralized jury instructions … frequently are not
adequate to inform factfinders of the factors affecting the
reliability of such identifications.”).

         Because evidence supported giving defendant’s
proposed jury instruction, it was a correct statement of the
law, and the generalized jury instructions did not sufficiently address the complex factors affecting the eyewitness
614                                                              State v. Allen

identification evidence, the trial court erred in failing to
give defendant’s requested jury instruction.10
         We must next determine if there was “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict[.]” State
v. Davis, 

, 

 (2003). In making that
determination, we consider “the instructions as a whole and
in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including
the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various
charges and defenses at issue.” State v. Ashkins, 

, 

 (2015).
         As previously noted, the state argued that (1) defendant’s proposed instruction included “common-sense considerations that jurors might choose to apply in the consideration of a witness’s testimony,” (2) the uniform instructions
the court gave “covered the same ground,” and (3) defendant
could argue the same factors to the jury. For the reasons previously explained, we reject the state’s arguments that the
uniform instructions were a sufficient substitute for defendant’s proposed jury instruction and that the jury instruction was not necessary because the factors were “common
sense” considerations. We also reject the state’s assertion
that defendant’s closing argument was a sufficient substitute for defendant’s proposed jury instructions. See State v.
Payne, 

, 

 (2020) (“ ‘[N]either the
sufficiency of the evidence nor the completeness of counsel’s
arguments concerning that evidence is a substitute for the
sufficiency of the instructions.’ ” (Quoting State v. Brown, 

, 

 (1990).)). Nonetheless, we conclude
that the error was harmless.
        Here, defendant’s requested instruction included
several factors that are relevant to assessing the reliability of eyewitness-identification evidence. However, given
the evidence adduced at trial, even viewed in the light most
favorable to defendant, there is little likelihood that the
jury would have found the identifications to be unreliable.

     10
        Cf. State v. Martin, 

, 

 (2018) (concluding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendant’s proposed
eyewitness-identification instruction because it was written in a nonneutral way
that “drew the jury’s attention to certain factors bearing on the lack of reliability
of eyewitness testimony”).
Cite as 

 (2021)                                               615

Therefore, we conclude that the failure to give defendant’s
jury instruction had little likelihood of affecting the verdict.
         Defendant argued in closing that the witnesses did
not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the assailant
because the confrontations happened quickly, the street was
poorly lit and it was dark out, there was too much distance
between the assailant and Phillip and Xavier, her hood was
up during the second confrontation with Barney, and Barney
and the assailant were not face-to-face because Barney was
taller. However, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the evidence showed that, although the street was poorly lit and it
was dark out, Phillip’s porch light was bright and on, and
Phillip was only three to four feet away from the woman and
observed her for up to two minutes during the confrontation.
Further, the evidence showed that Barney was face-to-face
with the assailant twice: during their first argument, which
lasted two to four minutes, he was close enough to push her
to the ground twice; and during their second argument, they
were close enough for her to stab him and for him to recognize the white design on her sweatshirt. Moreover, Phillip’s
and Xavier’s identifications occurred shortly after the event
when their memories were still fresh, and they all had some
familiarity with defendant’s face because she had been living on Phillip’s block. Thus, even acknowledging defendant’s
arguments that Barney was intoxicated and emotional and
the scene was chaotic, there is little likelihood that the jurors
would have found the witnesses’ identifications of defendant
to be unreliable given the totality of the evidence.11
         Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant,
the record is susceptible to an inference that the witnesses
may have obtained defendant’s name as a result of a conversation with other co-witnesses. Nonetheless, the totality
of the evidence suggests that the identifications were based
on the witnesses memory and perception and not due to any

    11
       We also note that, after Barney’s memory was refreshed, he testified, “I’m
pretty, I’m positive” that the woman said “something about putting your hands
on a woman,” which he understood to be a reference to him pushing her earlier.
Although that testimony expresses some degree of doubt and is not necessary
to our conclusion given the totality of the other evidence, if that testimony were
credited, it would serve to corroborate and substantially increase the reliability
of Barney’s identification.
616                                             State v. Allen

suggestibility. Phillip testified that he knew the assailant’s
face because she had been staying next door and he had seen
her walking down the street a few times, which was corroborated when Kaber learned that defendant lived on the same
block. Barney likewise recognized her face because he had
seen her in photographs with his brothers. Although they did
not know defendant’s name, they had seen her face before,
which would have increased their ability to identify her features based on their own memory rather than any perceived
suggestibility. Therefore, considering the witnesses’ familiarity with defendant, in combination with the evidence
presented that the witnesses had a sufficient opportunity to
observe and did observe the woman, we conclude that there
was little likelihood that the jury would have found the identifications to be unreliable had the jury been instructed as
defendant requested.

          In sum, given the totality of the evidence regarding
the reliability of the identifications, viewing that evidence
in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that
the failure to give defendant’s requested instruction had little likelihood of affecting the verdict. We pause to emphasize that trial courts in general should readily give properly
tailored, case-specific jury instructions when challenges
to eyewitness identifications are raised. As Lawson/James
explained, jurors are not aware of many of the factors that
affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony; some of those
factors are in fact contrary to common assumptions, and
generalized jury instructions, cross-examinations, and closing arguments are often not sufficient to inform jurors of the
complex issues related to the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. 

. Further, because studies
show that, “[n]ationally, 69% of DNA exonerations—252 out
of 367 cases—have involved eyewitness misidentification,
making it the leading contributing cause of these wrongful convictions,” educating juries on the various factors that
affect the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence
has never been more important. Innocence Project Staff,
How Eyewitness Misidentification Can Send Innocent People
to Prison (Apr 15, 2020), https://innocenceproject.org/howeyewitness-misidentification-can-send-innocent-people- to-prison/#:~:text=Nationally%2C%2069%25%20of%20DNA
Cite as 

 (2021)                              617

%20exonerations,based%20exonerations%20involving%20
eyewitness%20misidentification (accessed June 23, 2021).
However, for all of the reasons discussed, we conclude that
the trial court’s error here had little likelihood of affecting
the verdict.
         We turn to defendant’s supplemental assignments
of error asserting that the trial court plainly erred in
instructing the jury that it could convict defendant by a
10-2 verdict and when it entered convictions based on that
instruction. As the state correctly concedes, under Ramos v.
Louisiana, 

, 

, 206 L Ed 2nd
583 (2020), and State v. Ulery, 

, 

 (2020), defendant is entitled to a reversal of her convictions on Counts 4 and 6, which were based on nonunanimous verdicts, and we exercise our discretion to correct
the error. However, defendant is not entitled to reversal of
the remaining convictions based on unanimous verdicts,
because the instructional error is not structural and was
otherwise harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v.
Kincheloe, 

, 

 (2020), cert den, ___
US ___, ___ S Ct ___, ___ L Ed 2d ___, No. 20-8126, WL
2519403 (June 21, 2021); State v. Flores Ramos, 

, 

 (2020). Because defendant is entitled to a
new trial on the counts involving victim Pelletier, Counts 4
and 6, we need not address defendant’s assignment of error
challenging those convictions based on the admission of
Pelletier’s statements as excited utterances due to Pelletier’s
unavailability, as that issue may not arise on remand or, if it
does, a different record may develop.
       Convictions on Counts 4 and 6 reversed and
remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.