State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 29 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 706 P.2d 741,146 Ariz. 415 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frenchy Eugene CAMPBELL, Appellant. 3404. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was found guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping, two class 2 felonies arising out of the same incident. The jury also found that the crimes were of a dangerous nature. The court sentenced him to concurrent maximum 21-year terms on each count.
Appellant has assigned eight errors for our review, pointing to the trial court's allegedly:
1) failing to exclude in-court and out-of-court identification of appellant;
2) improperly ruling the state could impeach appellant with two prior convictions;
3) improperly admitting evidence of a prior bad act;
4) improperly denying a hearing on whether appellant was prejudiced by being seen by a juror while in handcuffs and without a shirt;
5) denying a mistrial motion in connection with problems with the next day's schedule of two jurors, allegedly causing a coerced verdict;
6) improperly re-reading a witness' testimony after the jury had begun deliberating 7) denying appellant's right to be present during jury deliberation, questions and re-reading of a witness' testimony, and
8) imposing an excessive sentence.
We affirm the convictions.
On January 16, 1983, the victim was working alone at the Hollywood Records & Tapes store on Speedway Boulevard in Tucson. He observed a man eating an ice cream cone in front of the store. A short time later the man entered the store, spoke to him about music, said his name was Gary and gave the clerk a phone number. He then asked the clerk to change a ten dollar bill and thumbed through some record albums. The clerk observed him for ten to 15 minutes and was able to describe him. The man came over to the clerk, put a gun to his head and said, "Let's not be no heroes now." He forced the clerk to give him approximately $600 from the cash register, escorted him to the back room and left. After remaining there for three minutes, the clerk reported the robbery. Within an hour of the robbery a cab driver picked up a fare at the Plaza Hotel one and one-half blocks from the record store. Although the cab driver testified he could not recognize the man, he was able to recall the coat he wore.
The appellant was identified by the clerk as the robber and his fingerprints were found on three record albums and on the outside of the cab. The defense was mistaken identification.
Appellant contends both the victim's out-of-court and in-court identifications should have been suppressed. The trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that an out-of-court identification was not unduly suggestive, that an in-court identification is free of any taint of an impermissible earlier identification and that both are sufficiently reliable to permit their submission to the jury. State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 965, 90 S.Ct. 1000, 25 L.Ed.2d 257 (1970); see State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
The detective testified he spoke to the clerk three times about the robbery. The first time he showed him in excess of 26 pictures, the second time he taped an interview and brought no pictures and the third time he brought another photo lineup from which the clerk identified the appellant. The appellant claims that the identification by the clerk was tainted because the detective told the clerk prior to the last photo lineup that a man whose description was similar to the man who robbed the Hollywood Records & Tapes store had been captured by the victim of a jewelry store robbery and was in custody. The evidence, however, is clear that the detective in no way indicated which of the six men in the photo lineup was the one who was in custody. We find that the evidence supports the trial court's finding after the Dessureault hearing that there was no undue suggestion in the photo lineup.
The appellant also contends that because of discrepancies between the clerk's description and appellant's actual appearance, we should reverse. Once a finding has been made that the out-of-court identification was not unduly suggestive, the weight of identification testimony then becomes a jury question. State v. Murray, 106 Ariz. 150, 472 P.2d 19 (1970); State v. Corrales, 95 Ariz. 401, 391 P.2d 563 (1964). Appellant has not shown any error in the victim's identification of appellant.
Appellant contends the court erred in ruling the state could impeach the appellant with two recent forgery convictions, thus precluding him from testifying on his own behalf. The court found the probative value of the convictions outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice and ruled the state could refer only to their existence and not to their nature. We find no abuse of discretion in this ruling. State v. Harding, 141 Ariz. 492, 687 P.2d 1247 (1984).
Appellant contends that, even though no direct evidence was offered of the unrelated burglary charge, because mention was made that appellant's fingerprints had been compared three times and that a photograph became available later, the jury logically could have inferred another bad act. There was no objection nor any improper suggestion that appellant had been arrested for an unrelated crime. We find no error. State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. 64, 649 P.2d 267 (1982).
The appellant was in custody during the trial and appellant's counsel reported that a juror had seen him in handcuffs outside the courtroom. Counsel told the court, "I wonder if we shouldn't question that juror to see if that hasn't influenced her." The court replied,
The appellant made no record concerning the incident and, absent any showing of prejudice, this court cannot speculate. The mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Swoopes
...any error arising from defendant's absence did not "affect[] any substantial constitutional rights"); State v. Campbell, 146 Ariz. 415, 418, 706 P.2d 741, 744 (App.1985) (counsel could waive defendant's right to be present during reading of testimony and answering of jury questions, and any......
-
State v. Cota
...(concluding defendant not personally required to waive presence during trial court's answer to jury question); State v. Campbell, 146 Ariz. 415, 418, 706 P.2d 741, 744 (App.1985) (finding no error when counsel waived defendant's presence without defendant objecting). We thus find no error, ......
-
State v. Webb
...does not, standing alone, constitute coercion or improper conduct on the part of the trial court. See State v. Campbell, 146 Ariz. 415, 418, 706 P.2d 741, 744 (App.1985) (no mistrial when jurors twice advised trial court that they were deadlocked and were advised to continue their deliberat......
-
State v. Evans
...person they knew as Joker and their attacker is a jury question on the weight to give the identification testimony. See State v. Campbell, 146 Ariz. 415, 417 (App. 1985); see also Rojo-Valenzuela, 237 Ariz. 448, ¶ 11 (alteration in Rojo-Valenzuela) ("Once the identification is deemed admiss......