## Facts

- Luke McDonald Hunton was charged with multiple counts of robbery based on three bank robberies in Washington: one at a Wells Fargo branch and two at the same Washington Trust branch.
- In each robbery, the perpetrator wore sunglasses and a baseball cap and acted calmly while demanding large-denomination bills (including “hundreds, 50s and 20s”).
- Multiple bank employees from both banks identified Hunton as the robber; employees at Washington Trust also testified the same person committed both robberies there.
- Before trial, the court suppressed the results of a police lineup after finding the lineup violated Hunton’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- Hunton moved to prevent witnesses who participated in the suppressed lineup from identifying him at trial.
- The trial court found the witnesses had a basis to identify Hunton independent of the suppressed lineup—based on their observations during the robberies—and allowed in-court identifications.
- Additional evidence linked Hunton to items associated with the robberies, including a New York Yankees cap and clothing similar to that seen in surveillance images, as well as a plaid jacket seized from his sister’s residence that Washington Trust employees associated with the robber.
- Witness testimony also connected Hunton to a car seen in connection with the first and last robberies.
- An acquaintance testified she drove Hunton to the bank on the day of the second Washington Trust robbery, lent him sunglasses just before he went inside, and he repaid a $20 debt immediately after returning.
- On the day of one robbery, Hunton attempted to rent an apartment while displaying many $50 and $20 bills and said he needed the apartment for only two weeks “until he got out of town.”
- Hunton represented himself at trial and was convicted. He appealed, challenging the in-court identifications and the sufficiency of the evidence, among other claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by permitting in-court identifications from witnesses whose lineup identifications were suppressed because the lineup violated Hunton’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hunton’s robbery convictions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirmed Hunton’s convictions.
- The court held that suppression of the lineup did not automatically bar in-court identifications and that the record supported the trial court’s finding that the witnesses’ identifications were based on observations independent of the suppressed lineup.
- The court held there was ample evidence to support the elements of robbery when viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
- The court rejected Hunton’s remaining assignments of error.

## Legal Principles

- Suppression of a lineup identification due to a constitutional violation does not, by itself, require exclusion of a later in-court identification.
- An in-court identification is admissible only if the State shows the identification is based on information independent of the suppressed lineup. (Citing State v. Redmond, 75 Wn.2d 62 (1968).)
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Hunton’s robbery convictions, concluding that the trial court properly allowed in-court identifications because the witnesses’ ability to identify Hunton rested on their observations during the robberies rather than the suppressed lineup, and holding that the combined eyewitness and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts.


State v. Hunton, 120 Wash. App. 1025 (2004)