By Joe Pinchot
MILL CREEK TOWNSHIP — Superior Court has refused to throw out evidence of a photographic lineup that was used to identify a man convicted of a burglary in Mill Creek Township.
The three-judge panel also turned aside Gregory E. Eagan’s contention that an alibi witness was wrongly questioned by a prosecutor during his trial.
Eagan, 24, formerly of Franklin, was found guilty by a jury on June 1, 2006, of burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary, theft and criminal trespass. He was found not guilty of theft and criminal trespass.
Mercer County Common Pleas Judge John C. Reed sentenced Eagan to 5 to 10 years in state prison.
The crime occurred when a woman, who was home with her three daughters, all minors, heard a car in her driveway on Aug. 15, 2005, according to the Superior Court opinion filed Thursday. The woman did not recognize the people in the car, and was in her pajamas, so she ignored the knocking at the front door and ringing of the doorbell.
A short time later, she emerged from her bedroom and saw two men in a hallway. She yelled for the men to get out, which they did, and gave a description to state police when they arrived an hour later.
Trooper Robert Perrine brought a sheet showing five photographs to the woman’s home five days later, and the woman and one of her daughters fingered Eagan as one of the men who had been in their home.
Eagan, who was arrested Aug. 22, 2005, asked to suppress the photo lineup, which Reed denied.
Eagan argued that the photo lineup was unduly suggestive because it showed a man in his 30s and one in his mid-20s when the intruders were described as being in their early 20s; only three had facial hair when one of the intruders had facial hair; and one wore glasses when none of the intruders wore glasses.
Reed said the photo lineup was sufficient because, among other reasons, the men were similar in appearance, haircut and build; Perrine did not say that any suspects were in lineup; and each victim was shown the lineup without the other present.
Case law has established that differences of facial hair and glasses are not sufficient to grant a suppression motion, a three-judge panel of Superior Court said, and Reed’s decision is supported by evidence.
Concerning the alibi witness questioning, prosecutors asked her why she did not come forward earlier. Superior Court said Eagan’s attorney at the time, Tedd Nesbit, did not object to the line of questioning, which takes it out of Superior Court’s ability to review it.
Eagan is being held in Findley Township.
