Coffee v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 580S144,580S144 |
| Parties | Charles R. COFFEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles F. Leonard, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Kathleen G. Lucas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of Rape. He was sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting evidence of out-of-court identification of appellant. He argues the one-to-one show-up occurring shortly after the rape resulted in a substantial likelihood of misidentification in violation of his due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Although appellant presented this issue to the trial court in his Motion to Correct Errors, a search of the record fails to reveal an objection to the admission of the out-of-court identification on the specific grounds now presented on appeal.
The record shows the following objection at the time the evidence was offered:
A question which an appellant seeks to present to the appeals court must be the same as the question presented to the trial court. Phelan v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 237.
The objection presented by the appellant to the trial court did not cover the question which he now seeks to present to this court. We therefore hold appellant has not properly preserved the question for appeal. However, had the allegation been preserved for review, the appellant would not prevail on his alleged error.
Although identification procedures which are so suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification violate a defendant's due process rights, Simmons v. United States, (1968) 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, it is entirely permissible for a law enforcement officer to present a suspect for identification within a few hours of the commission of the crime.
As this Court stated in Rogers v. State, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 348 at 353, "the value of having the witness observe a suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in their minds has been held to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mauricio v. State
...put him on one of the snowmobiles. Appellant does not present the same question on appeal that he did to the trial court. Coffee v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1318. The acts charged against both of these defendants were so closely connected in time, place, and occasion, that it would be......
-
Arnold v. State
...preserve an issue for appeal, the question raised on appeal must be the same as the objection raised to the trial court. Coffee v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1318; Beasley v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 396, 370 N.E.2d Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow h......
-
Hovis v. State
...the rule that an argument on appeal must be premised on the same grounds as was the required in trial objection. See Coffee v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1318; Phelan v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d As to admission of the second mug shot, there is no basis at all for holding the prose......
-
Williams v. State
...the defendant seeks to present to this Court on appeal must be the same as the question presented to the trial court. Coffee v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1318, 1319; Little v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 639, 645. Accordingly, the defendant has waived this issue as he did not pr......