State v. Kinard
Decision Date | 03 November 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 8126SC390,8126SC390 |
Citation | 283 S.E.2d 540,54 N.C.App. 443 |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Steve KINARD. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen., Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen., Sarah C. Young, Raleigh, for the State.
Appellate Defender, Adam Stein, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant first challenges the admissibility of the identification evidence. At voir dire upon defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, Katie Glenn and her boyfriend, Willie Simpson, testified that about 8:30 a. m. they were in the duplex apartment adjoining that of Virginia Potts when they saw a young black man pulling on the door of the Potts apartment. They observed him for two or three minutes from a distance of several feet. When Simpson went out the back door, the man left, and, while walking away, looked back at them about five times.
Simpson took Ms. Glenn to work and returned about 40 minutes later. He saw the same man come out of the Potts Apartment carrying a stereo set. He told the man to bring it back, but the man would not do so. Simpson got his rifle and fired two shots over the man's head. The man dropped the stereo set and ran.
The following day Simpson and Ms. Glenn went to the Law Enforcement Center where they were shown, separately, six photographs. Both selected the photograph of the defendant, Exhibit 6, as the man they saw at the Potts apartment.
The trial judge made findings of fact and concluded that the identification of the defendant by Ms. Glenn and Simpson was of independent origin, untainted by any pretrial identification procedure which was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.
The findings of fact by the trial judge were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the findings of fact in turn supported the conclusion that the in-court identification was of independent origin based on their observation of the defendant at the scene of the crime. See State v. Wilson, 296 N.C. 298, 250 S.E.2d 621 (1979). We hold that the identification testimony was admissible.
The defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to give the requested portions of N.C.P.I.--Crim. 104.90 relating to identifications made after the crime. The trial court gave the following instructions from N.C.P.I.--Crim. 104.90:
However, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDoulett v. State
...(1981); State v. Mazurek, 88 N.M. 56, 537 P.2d 51 (1975); People v. Gardner, 59 A.D.2d 913, 399 N.Y.S.2d 146 (1977); State v. Kinard, 54 N.C.App. 443, 283 S.E.2d 540 (1981); State v. Rovles, 41 Or.App. 653, 598 P.2d 1249 (1979); Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 456 Pa. 230, 318 A.2d 703 (1974); Stat......
-
State v. West, No. COA08-47 (N.C. App. 7/15/2008), COA08-47
...jury as to the detailed factors that enter into the totality of the circumstances relating to identification. State v. Kinard, 54 N.C. App. 443, 446, 283 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1981). Here, the evidence does not suggest a strong likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Three witnesses, having......
-
State v. Smith
...the jury as to the detailed factors that enter into the totality of the circumstances relating to identification. 54 N.C.App. 443, 446, 283 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1981). Though the circumstances of that case did not require that any special instruction be given, since two eyewitnesses testified, ......