Waters v. State
| Decision Date | 16 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S06A1337.,S06A1337. |
| Citation | 281 Ga. 119,636 S.E.2d 538 |
| Parties | WATERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Tony L. Axam, Axam, Adams & Secret, P.A., Atlanta, for Appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bettieanne C. Hart, Deputy Dist. Atty., Marc A. Mallon, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Chad Eric Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
Ricardo Waters was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony relating to the shooting death of Kyon Shuemake. Waters appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that several eyewitnesses observed Waters' interaction with Shuemake. Waters followed Shuemake into a restaurant on the day the crime was committed and sat with Shuemake at the bar. Then, Waters repeatedly followed Shuemake in and out of the restaurant, and eventually chased Shuemake from the restaurant, firing at him at least nine times with a handgun. After the shooting, Waters jumped into a silver truck and sped away. The medical examiner testified that Shuemake died as a result of gunshot wounds to the torso. This evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Waters guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Relying on McCoy v. State, 237 Ga. 62, 226 S.E.2d 594 (1976), Waters challenges the admission of identification testimony from two separate witnesses, arguing that each was shown an impermissibly suggestive lineup and that each witness' testimony indicated a likelihood of misidentification. Specifically, Waters contends that the color of his shirt, position of his head, and complexion in his photograph were different from the other photos in the first lineup, and that his photo in the second lineup was obtained from a Florida booking site while other photos were from an Atlanta database. Though Waters detailed the unique qualities of his photo in both instances, he failed to show how these differences would render either lineup unduly suggestive. Williams v. State, 275 Ga. 622(2), 571 S.E.2d 385 (2002). Furthermore, the record does not indicate any action by police that would have led the witnesses to single out Waters in the photo lineups. Additionally, it is well established that if the court does not find that the lineup was suggestive then it need not reach the issue of whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Williams v. State, 272 Ga. 828(2), 537 S.E.2d 39 (2000). Since Waters did not make a sufficient showing as to how the differences in his photos would have rendered the lineups or procedures suggestive, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying the motion to suppress.
3. Waters sought to suppress the admission of his arrest warrant into evidence, claiming that the warrant was improperly issued because it was not supported by probable cause. In reviewing the trial court's decision to deny the motion, this Court must examine whether the facts support a determination that the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed to issue the arrest warrant. See Lemon v. State, 279 Ga. 618(1), 619 S.E.2d 613 (2005). A magistrate's decision to issue a warrant based on a finding of probable cause is entitled to substantial deference by a reviewing court. Id.
The record here indicates that the magistrate issued a warrant based on facts contained in the police officer's affidavit for arrest. The affidavit documented that a witness identified appellant and stated that appellant was present at the scene of the crime. Another witness confirmed the identification through the six-photo lineup and testified to observing Waters carry out the actual crime. This information was sufficient to provide a magistrate a substantial basis to conclude that appellant was present at the crime scene and had committed the crime. Furthermore, as we determined above, the six-photo lineup was not suggestive. As such, the arrest warrant was properly issued and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the arrest warrant.
Nonetheless, Waters contends that the affidavit contains misleading information: a representation that one witness was the victim's cousin and a statement that the suspect was identified by "witnesses via a 6 photo lineup." However, even if the allegedly misleading information in the affidavit were redacted, the remaining information would still be sufficient for the magistrate to find probable cause to issue the warrant. See Evans v. State, 263 Ga.App. 572(2)(a), 588 S.E.2d 764 (2003) citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). There was no error.
4. Waters also appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain statements he made to police. Three officers encountered Waters in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in front of his parents' home and approached him with guns drawn. Waters was placed on the ground, handcuffed, and detained for 10 to 15 minutes while officers verified the warrant. The officers did not give Waters the Miranda warnings. Within two feet of Waters, the officers asked his father about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...would render either array unduly suggestive. Davis v. State, supra at 77(2)(a), 686 S.E.2d 249. See also Waters v. State, 281 Ga. 119, 120(2), 636 S.E.2d 538 (2006). Accordingly, the trial court was authorized to find the photographic identification procedures not to be impermissibly sugges......
-
Phillips v. State
...made by unwarned suspects in custodial interrogation are presumed to be compulsory and are inadmissible at trial." Waters v. State, 281 Ga. 119(4), 636 S.E.2d 538 (2006). On the other hand, a spontaneous and unsolicited statement not made in response to any form of custodial interrogation i......
-
Roseboro v. State
...position than other individuals in a photo array does not constitute an impermissibly suggestive lineup. See Waters v. State , 281 Ga. 119, 120, 636 S.E.2d 538 (2006) (concluding that the defendant "did not make a sufficient showing as to how the differences in his photos would have rendere......
-
Sharp v. The State
...],” and the fact that the photographs were booking photographs does not render them impermissibly suggestive. Waters v. State, 281 Ga. 119, 120, 636 S.E.2d 538 (2006). For these reasons, we find no merit to Sharp's contention that the out-of-court lineup was impermissibly suggestive. Becaus......