Sherwin v. State, 29910
| Decision Date | 27 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29910,29910 |
| Citation | 216 S.E.2d 810,234 Ga. 592 |
| Parties | David John SHERWIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Paul S. Weiner, Weiner & Bazemore, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Clarence L. Leathers, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., William Ison, Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Stephen Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
David Sherwin appeals his conviction in the Clayton County Superior Court on charges of kidnapping and armed robbery. Appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment on each charge, said sentences to run concurrently.
Marvin Talbot, driving a 1962 Chevy II station wagon, picked up two hitchhikers on I-75 in Atlanta. Shortly thereafter he was forced at pistol point to drive south on I-75 toward tampa, Florida. During the ordeal over the next four and one-half hours, he was robbed of $11.00, a credit card, and other items. Near Adel, Georgia he was told to stop the car and go to the other side so one of them could drive. As he exited, he started running and escaped. He called the State Patrol, giving them a description of the two abductors and the vehicle. Within a short time he was notified that his station wagon had been found near Lakeland, Georgia and that the Lakeland police had two suspects in custody. Talbot was taken to Lakeland where he promptly and positively identified the appellant and his co-defendant as his abductors.
At appellant's trial, his attorney objected to the in court identification by Talbot of appellant on the grounds that said identification would be tainted by an improper pre-trial identification at the Lakeland police station. His grounds for this objection were that the policeman that took Talbot to the station had intimated that they had the two culprits, and further, that the way the two suspects were shown to him, accompanied by four uniformed policemen, was highly prejudicial.
The trial judge heard all of the evidence submitted on this point and decided that under the facts of this case the in court identification was not tainted by the prior police station showup.
We agree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As a generl rule a police station showup, as opposed to a conventional line-up, is not favored. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). However, in each case it is necessary to look at the 'totality of the circumstances.' Davis v. State, 233 Ga. 847, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...from the showup is not necessarily inadmissible.’ ” Scruggs v. State, 309 Ga.App. 569, 575(4), 711 S.E.2d 86 (2011). In Sherwin v. State, 234 Ga. 592, 593, 216 S.E.2d 810 (1975), this Court held that, “[a]lthough as a general rule a police station [721 S.E.2d 881] showup, as opposed to a co......
-
Tate v. State
...the trial court did not err in permitting the in-court identification. Yancey v. State, 232 Ga. 167(1), 205 S.E.2d 282; Sherwin v. State, 234 Ga. 592, 216 S.E.2d 810; Hobbs v. State, 235 Ga. 8, 218 S.E.2d 769; Callahan v. State, 239 Ga. 132(2), 236 S.E.2d 2. As we have found that the identi......
-
Williams v. State, 55997
...of the defendant's due process rights. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401. See also Sherwin v. State, 234 Ga. 592, 216 S.E.2d 810; Dodd v. State, 236 Ga. 572, 574, 224 S.E.2d 408; Bradshaw v. State, 145 Ga.App. 664, 244 S.E.2d 600. Nor was there any objecti......
-
Turner v. State
...identification is not tainted by the earlier identification and can corroborate the testimony of the conspirator. See Sherwin v. State, 234 Ga. 592, 216 S.E.2d 810 (1975); Griffin v. State, 229 Ga. 165(1), 190 S.E.2d 61 Mr. Stanford also identified the defendant. He testified that at one po......