Hayslip v. State, 59403
| Decision Date | 11 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59403,59403 |
| Parties | HAYSLIP v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Reginald C. Wisenbaker, Valdosta, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Richard Shelton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and robbery by intimidation. Finding none of his enumerations of error meritorious, we affirm the conviction.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for continuance and permitting him to be tried in his "prison garb." See Sharpe v. State, 119 Ga.App. 222, 166 S.E.2d 645 (1969). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no error.
Although the clothing which appellant wore at trial was the clothing issued by the sheriff and although appellant testified that he had "civilian" clothing available to him, the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion for continuance establishes that appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court's denial of the motion. The evidence is uncontroverted that appellant's "prison garb" was in fact a pair of blue denim coverals. The coveralls bore no numbers or other marks commonly associated with prison uniforms. As the Lowndes County Sheriff testified:
We conclude that appellant's clothing, though issued by the sheriff, was sufficiently "civilian" to preclude the possibility of prejudice to appellant.
2. The victim identified appellant at trial. Appellant contends the in-court identification procedure was unduly suggestive and requires that his conviction be reversed.
The victim was a 77-year-old woman who obviously had difficulty viewing at a distance. The prosecuting attorney stated in his place that "the witness is squinting and leaning forward in an effort" to make an identification. After the witness asked, "Is that Duane?," the trial court permitted her to leave the stand and view the defendant at close range. The witness made a positive identification of the defendant, stating
While the in-court identification procedure was certainly unusual, it was nonetheless proper under the circumstances of this case. Clearly, the witness had visual problems and had to leave the stand in order to make the identification. The "leading" quality of the identification procedure arose from necessity. McCormick, Handbook on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 6, p. 10 provides a helpful analogy in its discussion of leading questions: Prior to the identification at issue in this case, the victim testified that she personally knew "Duane" and that he was the individual who attacked her. The identification permitted the state to connect up the "Duane" about whom the victim had previously testified with the accused.
Appellant argues that the "suggestive" and "leading" nature of the identification procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Towns v. State, 136 Ga.App. 467, 221 S.E.2d 631 (1975). In our view, any misidentification was far more likely to arise from the victim's visual difficulties than the identification procedure used at trial, especially since the identification was based upon a longstanding personal association with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brigman v. State, No. A06A1620.
...one with a hammer. See OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2); Nelson v. State, 278 Ga.App. 548, 550(1), 629 S.E.2d 410 (2006); Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga. App. 835, 836(3), 270 S.E.2d 61 (1980). The evidence also showed two separate instances of simple battery, one when Brigman pummeled Long with his fists an......
-
Pike v. State
...worn bore no distinctive marks and was not otherwise different than normal civilian attire. Whittington, supra; Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga.App. 835(1), 270 S.E.2d 61 (1980). Thus, the Georgia cases shed no light on the issue confronting us here. However, the same issue has been addressed by t......
-
Lopez v. State
...accorded a great deal of latitude in the examination of young or timid or otherwise disadvantaged witnesses. Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga.App. 835, 270 S.E.2d 61 (1980); Hanson v. State, 86 Ga.App. 313, 71 S.E.2d 720 (1952). In Hanson, this [C]ourt specifically noted that the nature of the offe......
-
Palmer v. State
...civilian clothing available to wear. See, e.g., Carswell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 743, 744(1), 295 S.E.2d 548 (1982); Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga. App. 835(1), 270 S.E.2d 61 (1980). Palmer argues that, unlike the appellant in Johnson, supra, he interposed a timely objection to being tried in jail......