Atkinson v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 48652,48653,s. 48652 |
| Citation | 511 S.W.2d 293 |
| Parties | Thomas Verne ATKINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Emmett Calvin, Jr., and Lawrence B. Mitchell, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Wm. L. Hubbard, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
Appellant's convictions in Cause No. 48,652 and Cause No. 48,653 are for rape; the punishment, imprisonment for twenty-five years in each cause.
Both cases were tried together, and in each one appellant asserts that the trial court committed error in overruling his objection to the in-court identification of appellant by the prosecutrix because there was an impermissibly suggestive photographic display prior to trial.
Prior to the in-court identification the trial court held a hearing concerning the photographic displays in the absence of the jury and determined that they were not impermissibly suggestive. See Martinez v. State, 437 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
This Court has adopted the rule that
White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
See Coleman v. State, 505 S.W.2d 878 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). In determining whether a photographic display is impermissibly suggestive, thus tainting the in-court identification, the Court should examine the totality of the surrounding circumstances. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Simmons v. United States, supra; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). See Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Robinson v. State, 502 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Martinez v. State, supra.
In Cause No. 48,652 the prosecutrix testified that as she walked home from a store a man stopped her, forced her behind the nearby bushes, and then raped her. Although the assault occurred at night, the prosecutrix had ample time and opportunity to observe the man when he approached her, during the rape, and still later when she was in a car with him for about five minutes. These events took place on or near a well-lighted street.
A few days after the rape, a detective showed the prosecutrix six photographs to see if she could identify her assailant. She chose the photograph of the appellant as that of the man who raped her.
Appellant contends the photographic display was impermissibly suggestive because in the six pictures shown his was the only one on a driver's license and his picture was smaller than the others. The six pictures shown to the prosecutrix were all black and white photographs and were all of men who were similar in appearance. The detective said nothing to suggest which photograph she should choose, and her testimony indicates that her in-court identification of appellant was based on her recollection of seeing him the night of the attack. The smaller size of appellant's picture was not suggestive because the record indicates the photographs were various sizes. Also, the portion of appellant's picture showing it to be a driver's license was covered during the display.
In Cause No. 48,653 the prosecutrix testified that she was walking home after making a phone call, and she saw a man walking toward her. She became frightened and ran; he caught her and forced her into a vacant lot where he raped her. The rape occurred at night, but the testimony indicates that there was bright moonlight and the surrounding area was well lighted. Although the prosecutrix, who was nearsighted, was not wearing her glasses, she said she was able to see well at a short distance. She was face-to-face with her attacker at a distance of a few inches for over an hour, thus she had sufficient time to observe the man.
She was shown a group of six color photographs a few days after the incident, and from these she identified appellant as the person who raped her.
Appellant claims the photographic display was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hafner
...U.S. 383, 88 S.Ct. 967; In the Matter of James H. (Anonymous), 34 N.Y.2d 814, 816, 359 N.Y.S.2d 48, 316 N.E.2d 334; Atkinson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tex.Cr.App.); whether the police indicated to the witness that they had other evidence that one of the persons pictured committed the c......
-
Doescher v. State, 54865
...to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.Cr.App.); Atkinson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Cr.App.); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Appellant's first ground of error is Appellan......
-
Pizzalato v. State
...474 S.W.2d 696; Perryman v. State (Tex.Cr.App.),470 S.W.2d 703; Elliott v. State (Tex.Cr.App.), 444 S.W.2d 914; Atkinson v. State (Tex.Cr.App.), 511 S.W.2d 293. The record reflects that at the time of the lineup no formal charge had been filed against appellant. In the absence of such a cha......
-
Barefoot v. State
...the opponent desires to secure the expert's opinion upon a different set of facts he may do so on cross-examination. Atkinson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Knoeppel v. State, 382 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); McMurrey v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 439, 168 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.194......