Robertson v. State, No. 881S210

Docket NºNo. 881S210
Citation429 N.E.2d 258
Case DateDecember 28, 1981
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 258

429 N.E.2d 258
Darrell ROBERTSON, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 881S210.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 28, 1981.

Page 259

Wendell W. Mayer, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Darrell Robertson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery, a class B felony. Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years in the Indiana Department of Correction. In his direct appeal, he presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether testimony establishing the victims' out-of-court identifications of defendant was improperly admitted by reason of the impermissibly suggestive nature of the identification procedures; and

2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

The record reveals that in the afternoon hours of March 14, 1980, two men entered Todd's Grocery Store at 120 West 30th Street in Indianapolis and, at gunpoint, robbed the store owner, Harold Todd, and a customer, Charles Cheatham. The owner of a neighboring gas station, Gardful Hendrix, was informed of the robbery in progress and rushed to the scene, where he fired his gun into the air and confronted the perpetrators. Notwithstanding Hendrix's intervention, the perpetrators fled; other neighbors, however, wrote down the license plate number of the getaway vehicle. Four days later, Hendrix interrupted a prowler at one of his gas stations whose license plate number matched that recorded at the scene of the robbery at Todd's grocery store. Hendrix detained the prowler at gunpoint; his apprehension culminated in defendant's arrest and conviction for the crimes at issue.

I.

Defendant maintains the trial court erred when it permitted the victims to testify at trial regarding their identification of defendant at a pretrial lineup conducted by police. He maintains the lineup identification was impermissibly tainted by the fact that prior to the lineup Gardful Hendrix had informed both Todd and Cheatham of the facts surrounding defendant's apprehension, as well as his opinion that defendant was the man who had robbed them. In addition, defendant asserts that the victims were shown photographs of defendant prior to the lineup. Defendant also maintains the lineup was tainted by the fact that when Todd and Cheatham arrived for the lineup, they were provided with paper and told to write down the number of the suspect identified as the perpetrator; the impermissible inference which arose, defendant argues, was that the perpetrator was present in the lineup.

Insofar as victim Cheatham is concerned, the record does not reveal any testimony to the effect that he ever made an identification of defendant at the lineup. Cheatham did identify defendant at trial; defendant has not challenged the propriety of that identification, however.

There is no indication that the police inspired the conversation between Hendrix and Todd; any information conveyed to him by Hendrix cannot support defendant's claim that the lineup was impermissibly suggestive. In order to present a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Johnson v. State, No. 1282S500
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 11 Enero 1985
    ...attempted to prevent, and did prevent, such an encounter. Seaton v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 105; Robertson v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258. Defendants further claim the lineup was impermissibly suggestive because the lineup participants were required to state the crime with whi......
  • O'CONNELL v. State, No. 71S00-9911-CR-665.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Marzo 2001
    ...enforcement personnel or the prosecutors were responsible for the unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure. Robertson v. State, 429 N.E.2d 258, 259-60 (Ind.1981). A witness' viewing of a suspect's photograph through the media does not ordinarily constitute an impermissibly suggesti......
  • Harris v. State, No. 45S00-9210-CR-832
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Agosto 1993
    ...personnel or the prosecution were responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the claim. Robertson v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258, 260. There is no showing here that law enforcement personnel or the prosecutor had any discussions with Jillson concerning the published photograph ......
  • Hegg v. State, No. 89S00-8609-CR-855
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Noviembre 1987
    ...of identification testimony predicated on suggestive and/or prosecutorial identification procedures. Robertson v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258, 259-60. We agree with Hegg's analysis of the law on this subject but find the facts do not support his contention that there was an unduly su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Johnson v. State, No. 1282S500
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 11 Enero 1985
    ...attempted to prevent, and did prevent, such an encounter. Seaton v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 105; Robertson v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258. Defendants further claim the lineup was impermissibly suggestive because the lineup participants were required to state the crime with whi......
  • O'CONNELL v. State, No. 71S00-9911-CR-665.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Marzo 2001
    ...enforcement personnel or the prosecutors were responsible for the unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure. Robertson v. State, 429 N.E.2d 258, 259-60 (Ind.1981). A witness' viewing of a suspect's photograph through the media does not ordinarily constitute an impermissibly suggesti......
  • Harris v. State, No. 45S00-9210-CR-832
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Agosto 1993
    ...personnel or the prosecution were responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the claim. Robertson v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258, 260. There is no showing here that law enforcement personnel or the prosecutor had any discussions with Jillson concerning the published photograph ......
  • Hegg v. State, No. 89S00-8609-CR-855
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Noviembre 1987
    ...of identification testimony predicated on suggestive and/or prosecutorial identification procedures. Robertson v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 258, 259-60. We agree with Hegg's analysis of the law on this subject but find the facts do not support his contention that there was an unduly su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT