This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A03-692

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Patrick Thomas Slaughter,

Appellant.

 

Filed June 29, 2004

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 02080493

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and

 

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

 

††††††††††† Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Wright, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D†† O P I N I O N

KALITOWSKI, Judge

††††††††††† Appellant challenges his convictions of first-degree burglary and second-degree assault, arguing that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who burglarized the victimís home.† We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

††††††††††† In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this courtís review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.† State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).† The reviewing court must assume the jury believed the stateís witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.† State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).† The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.† State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988).

††††††††††† Appellant argues that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who burglarized the victimís home.† Identification of a defendant is a question of fact for the jury to determine.† State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 495, 195 N.W.2d 590, 591 (1972).† Identification testimony need not be absolutely certain; it is sufficient if the witness expresses a belief that she or he saw the defendant commit the crime.†† State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998).† But the state must prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.† State v. Armstrong, 311 Minn. 541, 543, 249 N.W.2d 176, 178 (1976).† Generally, uncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a guilty verdict.† State v. Walker, 310 N.W.2d 89, 90 (Minn. 1981).

††††††††††† In determining the reliability of an identification, courts consider (1) the opportunity of the witness to see the defendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the length of time the person committing the crime was in the witnessís view; (3) the stress the witness was under at the time; (4) the lapse of time between the crime and the identification; and (5) the effect of the procedures followed by the police as either testing the identification or simply reinforcing the witnessís initial determination that the defendant is the one who committed the crime.

††††††††††† Here, the victim saw the person who burglarized his home briefly on two separate occasions, both in the daytime and with good lighting.† After the September 12, 2002, burglary and assault, the victim was able to give police a general description of the burglar.† And after the September 25, 2002, burglary, the victim identified the man who attempted to break into his home as the same man who had broken into his home on September 12, 2002.†

††††††††††† Although the situations in which the victim saw the burglar were stressful, the victim acted rationally both times.† The first time, he immediately closed and locked the bedroom door and then went to a neighborís house to call the police.† The second time, he was able to scare the burglar away with a gun.† Thus, the record indicates that the victim was not under so much stress that he could not think rationally.

††††††††††† On October 7, 2002, police showed the victim a photographic lineup of men who fit the description he had given the police.† The victim was able to positively identify appellant as the man who twice broke into his home, and the photographic lineup was conducted within a reasonable time of the crimes.† See Seelye v. State, 429 N.W.2d 669, 673 (Minn. App. 1988) (finding a photographic lineup 12 days after the crime reasonably prompt); State v. Fox, 396 N.W.2d 862, 864 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987) (finding a delay of several months acceptable).† Finally, the photographic lineup contained six photos of individuals matching the description the victim gave to police.† We thus conclude that a reasonable jury could have found the victimís identification of appellant reliable.

††††††††††† Our reading of the trial transcript indicates that the victim, who testified in court with the assistance of an interpreter, may have misunderstood some questions and had some difficulty communicating while he was testifying.† But the victim identified appellant at trial and testified that he was able to immediately identify appellant from the photo lineup.† The victim also testified that ď[i]f I saw the person, then I would definitely know.† Now that Iíve seen the person, I really know that itís him, the person that came to my house.Ē† Upon reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of† proof† beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that appellant was guilty of the charged offense.

††††††††††† Affirmed.