State v. Green
Decision Date | 11 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 5302.,5302. |
Citation | 412 S.C. 65,770 S.E.2d 424 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Marvin Bowens GREEN, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012–212739. |
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia; Amie L. Clifford, of the South Carolina Commission on Prosecution Coordination, of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent.
Marvin Bowens Green was convicted of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime (possession of a weapon) and armed robbery. The trial court sentenced him concurrently to five years' imprisonment for possession of a weapon and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for armed robbery. Green appeals, arguing the trial court erred in (1) not giving the jury specific instructions concerning how to analyze identification evidence; (2) allowing the State to introduce his “mug shot”; and (3) sentencing him to LWOP in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
On December 24, 2010, a man entered Natubhai Patel's (Victim's) convenience store and robbed him at gunpoint. At trial, Victim testified the man was “wearing sunglasses, a red hat, a black jacket, and khaki pants.” He recognized the man as a regular customer he had known for approximately one year, who came into his store three times a week to purchase cigarettes, gas, and lottery tickets. Victim explained he and the man had a running joke about President Barack Obama's signature being on the man's identification. Victim identified Green in court as the man who robbed him. According to Victim, the police arrived at the store after the robbery and viewed surveillance video of the robbery with him. Thereafter, the trial court admitted the surveillance video without objection.
Detective Charles Lawrence investigated the robbery. He reviewed the surveillance video and recognized the perpetrator as Green. Detective Lawrence knew Green and was able to identify him as the robber because of Green's “walk, height, weight[,] and structure of his face.” He explained Green had a distinctive nose that led him to identify Green as the man in the video. Detective Lawrence asserted he was 100% positive Green was the man in the surveillance video. After he identified Green as the robber, Detective Lawrence generated a six-person photo line-up and arranged to meet with Victim to see if he could identify the man who robbed him. According to Detective Lawrence, Victim identified Green as the robber in a photographic line-up. The trial court admitted the line-up photo of Green over his objection.
Green objected, arguing it was reversible error to admit a “booking photo” and the following colloquy occurred:
Thereafter, the State moved to admit the booking photo, and Green objected under Rule 404(b). The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the photo as State's Exhibit 5, but it did not allow the State to publish the photo to the jury at that time.
SLED investigator Joseph West testified he obtained still photographs from the surveillance video of the robbery. The trial court admitted the still photos over Green's objection.
Jagruti Patel, Victim's wife, testified she recognized the man in the surveillance video as a regular customer who often came into the store to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, and gas. She recalled him joking about President Obama signing his driver's license. Patel identified Green in court as the man in the video.
After the State rested, Green asked for clarification regarding the trial court's ruling on the booking photo. The trial court noted it admitted the photo earlier but did not allow the State to publish it to the jury. The court explained the State planned to submit a redacted, color copy of the photo that was enlarged so that it was “in conformity” with “all the other paper page sizes.” Green renewed his objection to the booking photo, and the following exchange occurred:
The trial court then admitted the redacted booking photo as State's Exhibit 5–A over Green's objection.
Thereafter, Green called Dr. Jennifer Beaudry, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of South Carolina Beaufort, to testify regarding eyewitness identification procedures and “people's perceptions of those procedures.” The trial court qualified her as an expert in “human memory and eyewitness identification” without objection. Dr. Beaudry first testified regarding common misconceptions about human memory, including that memory works “like a video camera,” and that a person is more likely to recall the details of a traumatic event. Dr. Beaudry testified factors that can affect a person's ability to encode information, include: the presence of a weapon, whether the perpetrator is wearing a disguise, and whether the perpetrator and witness are of the same race. She further stated that lighting, exposure time, and stress also affect a person's ability to recall information. Specifically, Dr. Beaudry explained stress and “weapon focus” reduce a witness's identification accuracy. She also stated “research shows that [people are] much better at identifying someone of [their] own race than identifying somebody of a different race” and that cross-racial identification increases the chances of a false identification.
Following Dr. Beaudry's testimony, Green submitted proposed jury instructions regarding identification.2 “Request to Charge Number One” advised the jury to consider the extent to which the perpetrator's features were visible, whether there were any distractions during the eyewitness's observation, whether the eyewitness experienced stress or fright at the time of the observation, and whether the witness's identification may have been impaired by personal motivations, biases, and prejudices. It instructed the jury to consider issues implicated by cross-racial identifications; specifically, that “[i]dentification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than identification by a person of the same race.” This instruction also provided the jury with guidance concerning how to determine whether the identification was a product of the witness's own memory.
“Request to Charge Number 2” included instruction regarding the witness's opportunity to observe the subject of his testimony, whether the witness had something to gain by his testimony, motivation to lie, consistency of testimony, believability in light of the other evidence, and whether “there [was] anything about the way the witness testified that made the testimony more or less believable.”
The trial court refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Moretti
...as a habitual offender even though one of his prior qualifying felony convictions was committed at age 16); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 85-87, 770 S.E.2d 424 (Ct. App. 2015) (holding that it was constitutional to impose a life without parole sentence on adult recidivist whose prior strike ......
-
State v. Daise, Appellate Case No. 2013-002394
...is ever desirable, it is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal." State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 79, 770 S.E.2d 424, 432 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 339, 665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) ). We find the circuit court did not......
-
State v. Smith
... ... strike offenses when the offender was a juvenile. The court ... cited United States v. Hoffman , 710 F.3d 1228, 1233 ... (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mays , 466 F.3d ... 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2006); State v. Green , 412 S.C ... 65, 85-87, 770 S.E.2d 424 (Ct. App. 2015); Counts v ... State , 2014 Wy 151, 338 P.3d 902 (Wyo. 2014). A ... different panel of this court rejected the argument that ... article I, section 14 categorically bars imposition of a ... sentence to life ... ...
-
State v. Davis-Kocsis
...is ever desirable, it is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal." State v. Green , 412 S.C. 65, 79, 770 S.E.2d 424, 432 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Lyles , 379 S.C. 328, 339, 665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) ). "All relevant evidence is admis......