STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO A. McCULLUM, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-838 / 08-1843
Filed November 12, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MARIO A. McCULLUM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Lawrence H.
Fautsch, Judge.
Mario McCullum appeals following conviction and sentence for robbery in
the first degree. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Douglas, Assistant Attorney
General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Brigit Barnes, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
DANILSON, J.
Mario McCullum appeals following conviction and sentence for robbery in
the first degree, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
the clothing lineup because the identification was unduly suggestive and violated
his due process rights. In denying McCullum’s motion, the district court relied on
State v. Bruns, 304 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Iowa 1981) (declining “to extend cases
protecting the accused’s right to a fair pretrial identification of her person to the
pretrial identification of items of physical evidence”), and determined that due
process protections for pretrial identification do not extend to identification of
inanimate objects.
McCullum argues that Bruns is distinguishable from the instant case,
because the victim in Bruns was asked to identify the accused’s car, whereas the
victims in the instant case were asked to identify the clothing worn by McCullum.
McCullum contends this court should reverse Bruns or distinguish these facts
from Bruns, and find that due process applies to pretrial identification of an
accused’s clothing alleged to have been worn during the offense.
Upon our
review, we conclude the longstanding rule in Bruns applies to pretrial
identification of physical evidence, including clothing. See id. We decline to
reverse that holding and find no distinguishable facts. Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
