State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 04 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19920,19920 |
| Citation | 210 S.E.2d 307,263 S.C. 328 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Willie CAMPBELL, Appellant. |
H. F. Partee and John I. Mauldin, Greenville, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert M. Ariail and Staff Attorney Joseph R. Barker, Columbia, and County Solicitor C. Victor Pyle, Greenville, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and received a sentence of twenty (20) years. He has appealed and the sole question presented is whether there was evidence to sustain the findings of the trial judge that the pretrial identification of the appellant by the prosecutrix was not so suggestive as to render her in-court identification of him inadmissible.
Prosecutrix was robbed while walking along a street in Greenville, South Carolina, about dawn, on March 30, 1974. She had ample opportunity to observe her assailant and immediately after the incident gave a description of him to the officers. In their efforts to identify her assailant, the officers showed to the prosecutrix a group of six (6) photographs on April 2d, but none of these could be identified as the one who committed the crime. Subsequently, on April 8th, the officers, after stating to the prosecutrix that they had a suspect, presented to the prosecutrix a second group of pictures, among which was a photograph of appellant. She immediately identified appellant as her assailant and he was charged with armed robbery.
The last group of pictures presented to the prosecutrix, and from which the identified appellant, were each dated, apparently showing the year in which they were taken. There were seven (7) pictures showing respectively the dates 1958, 1954, 1954, 1952, 1952, 1952, and that of appellant April 5, 1974. The prosecutrix saw a picture of appellant on about ten (10) different occasions between her identification of him on April 8th and the trial which began on June 6th. She positively identified him at the trial as the one who robbed her.
Upon motion to exclude any in-court identification of appellant by the prosecutrix, the trial judge heard testimony in the absence of the jury to determine whether there was a substantial likelihood that an in-court identification by the prosecutrix would be impermissibly influenced by the pretrial identification by her from the photographs. The trial judge concluded that an in-court identification by the prosecutrix would not be influenced by her previous view of the pictures and overruled appellant's objection to the testimony.
Appellant contends that the exhibition of the dated pictures to the prosecutrix was prejudicially suggestive in that all of the pictures, except that of appellant, were dated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fowler
...The record amply sustains these findings by the trial judge, and the in-court identification was properly allowed. State v. Campbell, S.C., 210 S.E.2d 307; State v. Rogers, S.C., 210 S.E.2d Appellant also seeks to have his in-court identification by the prosecuting witness suppressed upon t......
-
Thompson v. Hofmann
... ... of New Jersey, and was served under Section 10.2--806(1)(c), as reenacted in 1972, the so-called long-arm statute 1 which provides for out-of-state service on non-residents in specified cases, including Section 10.2--803(1)(c), which provides: ... '(1) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction ... ...