Askew v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0986,A89A0986 |
| Parties | ASKEW v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Tony L. Axam, Atlanta, for appellant.
William G. Hamrick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Peter J. Skandalakis, Monique F. Kirby, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of rape and robbery. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the guilty verdicts.
1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds.
The victim never saw the face of the man who raped and robbed her. However, two witnesses identified appellant as the man they had seen in the area at the approximate time the crimes were committed. Scientific evidence was incriminatory of appellant. The witnesses presented in support of appellant's defense of alibi were thoroughly impeached. We find that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant moved to suppress evidence relating to his pre-trial and in-court identification. The denial of his motion is enumerated as error.
Assuming without deciding that the pre-trial photographic lineup was so suggestive as to cast doubt upon the reliability of the witnesses' identification, we will undertake "a 'totality of circumstances' review focusing on certain factors which might lead to 'likelihood of misidentification': (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the perpetrator; (2) the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of prior description; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification." Burks v. State, 174 Ga.App. 304(1), 329 S.E.2d 590 (1985). One witness looked the man in the eyes and talked with him for approximately five minutes. The other witness watched and talked with him for approximately two minutes. Both witnesses gave a clear and accurate description of the man before being shown any photographs. Positive photo identifications were given by both witnesses some two or three months after the crimes had been committed. Redd v. State, 154 Ga.App. 373, 374(2), 268 S.E.2d 423 (1980). The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the identification evidence.
3. The trial court's refusal to suppress appellant's incriminating statement is enumerated as error. The contention is
that the State did not show that appellant had clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garlington v. State
...defendant's argument that statement should not be admitted because police had not followed proper procedures); Askew v. State, 193 Ga.App. 61(3), 387 S.E.2d 25 (1989) ("[i]t is not constitutionally required that a waiver be in writing") (citations 37. Davis v. State, 245 Ga.App. 508, 510, 5......
-
Myers v. State
...was no error in admitting the statements. See generally Harris v. State, 190 Ga.App. 343(3), 378 S.E.2d 912 (1989); Askew v. State, 193 Ga.App. 61(3), 387 S.E.2d 25 (1989). Judgment BEASLEY, C.J., and JOHNSON, J., concur. BEASLEY, Chief Judge, concurring specially. I concur fully in Divisio......
-
Durden v. State
...They waived those rights and voluntarily elected to give statements and respond to custodial questioning. See Askew v. State, 193 Ga.App. 61-62, 387 S.E.2d 25 (1989). The search warrant was based in part on the Durdens' statements that they were in possession of marijuana located at their r......
-
Fulmer v. State, A92A1091
...court's finding that Fulmer freely and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights was not clearly erroneous. See Askew v. State, 193 Ga.App. 61(3), 387 S.E.2d 25 (1989). 3. Fulmer next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial on the ground that the testimony ......