Coleman v. State, 57471
| Decision Date | 04 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57471,57471 |
| Citation | 258 S.E.2d 12,150 Ga.App. 380 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
George A. Markert, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
John Coleman appeals from his conviction of armed robbery and his twenty-year sentence in a state penal institution.
1. Appellant contends that it was error for the trial court to deny his request for a hearing outside the presence of the jury on the question of tainted in-court identification. Appellant's reliance on Holcomb v. State, 128 Ga.App. 238, 196 S.E.2d 330 (1973) is misplaced. In that case, counsel made a timely motion prior to trial and requested such a hearing several times during the trial. As a result of the denial of his request, lengthy examinations of matters not directly involving the guilt or innocence of the accused were conducted in the presence of the jury which were highly prejudicial. Here, we find that the failure to dismiss the jury was harmless error. At trial, the victim positively identified appellant as the man who robbed him. Where in-court identification is independent of lineup identification, the admission into evidence of in-court identification is not error. Brinks v. State, 232 Ga. 13, 205 S.E.2d 247 (1974).
2. Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the victim's identification of him because the showing of photographs and the subsequent one-on-one confrontation were a violation of his due process rights. The victim testified that he went to the police station after the robbery, viewed between six and a dozen photographs, selected appellant's picture and shortly thereafter identified him in a one-on-one confrontation. While one-on-one confrontations between an eyewitness and a suspect have been condemned, a "violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances." Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199) (1967). This court has held that a photographic array can be suggestive when used close in time to a lineup, but when the record is devoid of specifics which would substantiate a claim of misidentification and the witness is able to identify appellant from the array, the procedure is not impermissibly suggestive. Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 231 S.E.2d 729 (1977). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNeese v. State
...and the in-court identification was independent of any other identification. This evidence was correctly admitted. See Coleman v. State, 150 Ga.App. 380(2), 258 S.E.2d 12; McClesky v. State, 245 Ga. 108, 110-112(2), 263 S.E.2d 3. Testimony was offered as to four similar transactions involvi......
-
State v. Peabody
...must be demonstrated before a violation of § 27-313(b) can be said to give rise to reversible error. See also Coleman v. State, 150 Ga.App. 380(1), 258 S.E.2d 12 (1979) (holding that where the trial judge commits error in holding a hearing on the motion to suppress identification testimony ......
-
Johnson v. State
...lineup or in the display of photographs; and the trial court did not err in admitting the identification testimony. Coleman v. State, 150 Ga.App. 380(2), 258 S.E.2d 12; Johnson v. State, 150 Ga.App. 405(1), 258 S.E.2d 22; Chafin v. State, 154 Ga.App. 122(3), 267 S.E.2d 625; Redd v. State, 1......
-
Heard v. State
...of the pre-trial photographic line-up. Therefore, admission of the in-court identification evidence was not error. Coleman v. State, 150 Ga.App. 380(1), 258 S.E.2d 12 (1979). See also State v. Peabody, 247 Ga. 580(5), 277 S.E.2d 668 3. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in charging......