Talley v. State
Decision Date | 16 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. A93A0722,A93A0722 |
Citation | 432 S.E.2d 667,209 Ga.App. 79 |
Parties | TALLEY v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fletcher W. Griffin, III, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., C. Lane Graves, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a sharp-edged object and appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him.
Viewed in a light to support the verdict, the evidence shows that as a bar was closing one Wednesday night and the last remaining patrons were slowly leaving, the victim, Steven Renwick, was talking in the parking lot with a friend and two young women. Renwick left a bag in the bar and decided to retrieve it. He approached the well-lit front doorway and saw a large man who appeared very intoxicated and a woman struggling to help him walk to the parking lot. When Renwick asked if they needed any assistance, the large man belligerently declined his help, yelling, cursing and asking Renwick if he wanted to fight. Renwick assured the man he did not want to fight and told the man he was drunk and should go home. The man continued yelling and cursing until the woman succeeded in pushing him toward the car. After the large man reached the passenger side of the car and started to get in, he turned, yelled again at Renwick to get his attention and started to walk back toward him. At this point, the large man's tone was conciliatory as he told Renwick not to pay any attention to him; he was just drunk. The large man approached within a foot of Renwick and moved his hand as if to pat Renwick's shoulder. After he touched Renwick, the large man's face turned from conciliatory to threatening. The large man returned to his car and left, and Renwick felt a stinging sensation and noticed blood coming from his neck. Renwick realized at that point that he had been cut, although he had not seen anything in the large man's hand. Renwick was able to describe his assailant and his friend noted the license number of the car the large man drove off in. Additionally, a bar employee said the large man who left with a woman about that time was a regular called "Talley Ho." From this information, the attention of the police focused on appellant, and Renwick easily and quickly identified appellant from a six-photograph lineup eleven days after the incident. Renwick also identified appellant at trial as the large man who attacked him outside the bar.
1. Appellant first argues that the photograph lineup in which Renwick identified appellant as his attacker was impermissibly suggestive due to differences in hair color of the subjects and picture tone among the six photographs. However, at least three of the photos had subjects with dark brown hair like appellant's, and three of the photos, including that of appellant, had a lighter tone than the other three. The six photos all showed men of approximately the same age, with the same shape of face, moustache and brown hair of approximately the same length. The officer conducting the lineup identification procedure made no suggestion to Renwick that the assailant was one of the six and said nothing to him other than to ask him to read the standard form affidavit and look at the photos. When Renwick looked at the photos, he identified appellant's photo as that of his attacker within seconds. At trial, Renwick again identified appellant as the assailant. Selbo v. State, 186 Ga.App. 779, 781, 368 S.E.2d 548 (1988). Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that the photographic array was not impermissibly suggestive and there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification. Thus, the identification evidence was properly allowed. See Selbo, supra.
2. In two enumerations of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior aggravated assault as a similar transaction. At a hearing held pursuant to Uniform Superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waddell v. State, A05A1961.
...so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Talley v. State, 209 Ga.App. 79, 80(1), 432 S.E.2d 667 [(1993)]; see also Merritt v. State, 211 Ga.App. 228, 230, 438 S.E.2d 691 [(1993)]. In fact, even where a pretrial identifica......
-
Standfill v. State, A04A0558.
...Jackson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 53, 54(1), 432 S.E.2d 649 (1993). 12. (Citation omitted.) Clark, supra. 13. See Talley v. State, 209 Ga.App. 79-80(1), 432 S.E.2d 667 (1993) (photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive where three of the six men pictured had the same color hair as the......
-
Turbeville v. State
...Jackson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 53, 54(1), 432 S.E.2d 649 (1993). 12. (Citation omitted.) Clark, supra. 13. See Talley v. State, 209 Ga.App. 79-80(1), 432 S.E.2d 667 (1993) (photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive where three of the six men pictured had the same color hair as the......
-
Howard v. State
...time is similarly without merit. The 1991 assault occurred only three years prior to the charged offenses. See Talley v. State, 209 Ga.App. 79, 80(2)(a), 432 S.E.2d 667 (1993). Furthermore, the 1982 assault was not too remote in time, particularly in light of the fact that Howard was incarc......