State v. Johnson, No. 1956
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 311 S.C. 132,427 S.E.2d 718 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Rantley JOHNSON, Appellant. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 26 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1956 |
Page 718
v.
Rantley JOHNSON, Appellant.
Decided Feb. 22, 1993.
Asst. Appellate Defender M. Anne Pearce, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Miller W. Shealy, Jr., and Sol. Richard A. Harpootlian, Columbia, for respondent.
[311 S.C. 133] PER CURIAM:
Rantley Johnson was indicted in Richland County for strongarm robbery on April 11, 1991. A jury convicted him and the trial judge sentenced him to ten years. Defense counsel made a proper motion for suppression of identification testimony of the defendant. We affirm.
A convenience store was robbed at 3:30 in the morning. The 22 year old night
Page 719
clerk was the only person in the store at the time of the robbery. The clerk described the perpetrator as a black male, just over six feet, medium build, weighing about 180-185, wearing a ski cap low on his face and a ski jacket with the collar pulled up. The clerk activated a silent alarm. When the police arrived, the clerk was asked if he had gotten a good look at the robber and if he could identify him again. The clerk responded that he had seen his eyes and the top part of his nose, but he was certain he could identify the perpetrator again.Ten minutes later a police officer drove the clerk to a vacant lot for a show-up identification. There the clerk viewed Johnson standing beside a police car, handcuffed, illumined by an emergency spotlight. He was not wearing a ski jacket or cap. The clerk did not immediately identify Johnson as the perpetrator. However, after carefully viewing, the clerk determined that Johnson was the man who had robbed him.
The only issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in failing to suppress the clerk's identification testimony which may have been tainted by an unduly suggestive identification procedure.
The conduct of trial, including the admission and rejection of testimony, is largely within the trial judge's sound discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such discretion or the commission of legal error which results in prejudice for appellant. State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532 (1941).
[311 S.C. 134] A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson, No. 3046.
...which results in prejudice to the defendant. Gregory, supra; State v. Moore, 334 S.C. 411, 513 S.E.2d 626 (Ct.App.1999); State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 The standard for determining the admissibility of a pre-trial photographic identification is "whether the identificati......
-
State v. Moore, No. 25217.
...in accordance with the factors set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993).3 Accordingly, the majority remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Davis' statement w......
-
State v. Moore, No. 2950.
...1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Single person show-ups are disfavored because they are suggestive by their nature. See State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993). It is well established, however, that an identification may be reliable under the totality of the circumstances ......
-
State v. Patrick, No. 2343
...discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error. State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993). In deciding whether evidence is admissible, the judge must determine whether the identification procedure was so im......
-
State v. Patterson, No. 3046.
...which results in prejudice to the defendant. Gregory, supra; State v. Moore, 334 S.C. 411, 513 S.E.2d 626 (Ct.App.1999); State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 The standard for determining the admissibility of a pre-trial photographic identification is "whether the identificati......
-
State v. Moore, No. 25217.
...in accordance with the factors set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993).3 Accordingly, the majority remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Davis' statement w......
-
State v. Moore, No. 2950.
...1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Single person show-ups are disfavored because they are suggestive by their nature. See State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993). It is well established, however, that an identification may be reliable under the totality of the circumstances ......
-
State v. Patrick, No. 2343
...discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error. State v. Johnson, 311 S.C. 132, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993). In deciding whether evidence is admissible, the judge must determine whether the identification procedure was so im......