Truelove v. State, A90A1935
| Decision Date | 05 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1935,A90A1935 |
| Citation | 400 S.E.2d 396,198 Ga.App. 14 |
| Parties | TRUELOVE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Word & Flinn, Gerald P. Word, Carrollton, for appellant.
William G. Hamrick, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Agnes McCabe, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of armed robbery. He brings this appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial. Held:
1. The appellant contends that a pre-trial photographic lineup from which he was identified was impermissibly suggestive and that the court consequently erred both in admitting evidence concerning the photographic lineup and in permitting in-court identification testimony from witnesses who had viewed it. The display consisted of photographs of six white males ranging from 17 to 24 years of age. However, of these six individuals, the appellant was the only one photographed standing in front of a height chart. Two witnesses who viewed the display were able to positively identify the defendant both from the photo display and at trial, while two other witnesses selected someone else and could not identify the appellant at trial. The trial court was clearly authorized to conclude under these circumstances that the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. See generally Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).
2. The defendant contends that the pre-trial identification procedures were also tainted by the illegal impoundment and inventory search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of information which enabled the police to locate him. Clearly, this would have no bearing on the integrity of the pre-trial identification procedures. Furthermore, no such objection was made at trial, and it is axiomatic that Brinson v. State, 191 Ga.App. 151, 152(3), 381 S.E.2d 292 (1989).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baugher v. State
...We have reviewed the photographic line-up and find that it was not impermissibly suggestive. See generally Truelove v. State, 198 Ga.App. 14(1), 400 S.E.2d 396 (1990); Graham v. State, 171 Ga.App. 242, 253(11), 319 S.E.2d 484 (1984); Simpson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 439, 440, 388 S.E.2d 39 (19......
-
Karim v. State, A00A1020.
...463 S.E.2d 906 (1995). 12. Supra, 233 Ga. at 300(2), 210 S.E.2d 775. 13. Supra, 240 Ga.App. at 31-32(7), 521 S.E.2d 876. 14. 198 Ga.App. 14(1), 400 S.E.2d 396 (1990). 15. Daniel v. State, 185 Ga.App. 228, 230(2), 363 S.E.2d 634 ...
-
Miller v. State
...State, 233 Ga.App. 573(2)(a), 504 S.E.2d 764 (1998); Manning v. State, 207 Ga.App. 181(5), 427 S.E.2d 521 (1993); Truelove v. State, 198 Ga.App. 14(1), 400 S.E.2d 396 (1990). The fact that the victim initially identified another lineup participant as the assailant does not make the lineup i......
-
Love v. State, A92A0743
...(1991). The remaining argument made here was not made below and will not be considered here for the first time. Truelove v. State, 198 Ga.App. 14(2), 400 S.E.2d 396 (1990). Judgment affirmed. BIRDSONG, P.J., and BEASLEY, J., concur. 1 Since the decision in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 ......