Daniels v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 50871,No. 1,50871,1 |
| Citation | 218 S.E.2d 274,135 Ga.App. 549 |
| Parties | Jeremiah DANIELS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lowrey S. Stone, Blakely, for appellant.
Ralph H. Foster, Dist. Atty., Blakely, for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of theft by taking. On appeal he raises two issues: (1) The denial of his motion to suppress the in court identification testimony of two witnesses for the State; and (2) Whether the evidence authorized the conviction.
The evidence at the suppression hearing and at trial shows that an individual identified as the defendant entered a rural grocery store, made a purchase, and left. The store was lighted with fluorescent lights. Thirty minutes later, the defendant returned and asked to purchase more merchandise. While the store owner was obtaining the desired merchandise, he heard 'something hit the floor.' On looking, the defendant and the owner's cash register and its contents were gone. The victim went outside and saw the defendant drive off in a car. Another State witness testified that he saw the defendant on three separate occasions in the vicinity of this store on the date of the theft. The defendant was arrested about one week later. Very shortly after the arrest defendant was taken, and according to a deputy sheriff's testimony at defendant's own insistence, to the victim's residence for the purpose of identification. At the confrontation the defendant was sitting in the sheriff's car and the lighting was poor at this place later in the evening. The store owner was unable to make a positive identification of defendant at this time due to the poor lighting. The other witness identified the defendant as the person he saw in the vicinity of the store on the three occasions. These identification procedures were done in the absence of counsel. Sometime later, the store owner was shown by the police approximately twelve photographs which included pictures of the defendant. The victim identified defendant's photo as the person who had entered his store. Held:
1. In United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, the Supreme Court held that courtroom identification by a witness to whom the defendant was exhibited in the absence of counsel before trial must be excluded unless it can be shown that the identification evidence had an independent origin or was not tainted or exploited by the line up procedure. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCranie v. State
...irreparable misidentification'. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247." Daniels v. State, 135 Ga.App. 549, 550, 218 S.E.2d 274, 275-276 (1975). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the procedure used in showing the photographs to Mrs. Ham was ......
-
Styles v. State
...of irreparable misidentification.' Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377, 378(1), 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247; Daniels v. State, 135 Ga.App. 549, 550(1), 218 S.E.2d 274. 2. There was ample opportunity for the victim to make the identification, and all of the other acts show robbery by f......
-
Morris v. State
...this test, one relevant factor is the prior opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act . . ." Daniels v. State, 135 Ga.App. 549, 550, 218 S.E.2d 274 (1975). Here, the defendant was seen face to face by witness Fordham in a well-lighted store, she described the clothing h......
-
Scroggins v. Ridge Nassau Corp.
... ... 791, 72 S.E. 236. However, equitable relief was neither sought in the complaint nor could it have been granted by the trial court, the State Court of Cobb County, for it has no equity jurisdiction. Code § 2-3901. Therefore a verdict for Scroggins was demanded and the trial court erred ... ...