Watkins v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 67 |
| Citation | 449 So.2d 1270 |
| Parties | James Douglas WATKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael Blalock, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Anthony McLain and James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, James Watkins, was indicted and convicted for robbery in the first degree and attempted murder in Jefferson County. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment for the robbery conviction and ten years' imprisonment for attempted murder.
Mr. Baker, the alleged victim in this case, was working with his wife at the all-night Ride Service Station in Birmingham, at approximately 3:00 a.m., when two black males robbed them and shot Mr. Baker. The projectile entered under Baker's right arm, proceeded through his body and exited under his left arm. He remained in intensive care at the hospital for about three weeks.
Shortly after the shooting, on his first visit to see Mr. Baker, Sergeant John Barefield, the investigating officer, received a description of the perpetrator of the crime. Mr. Baker described his assailant as a black man of average height, about 140 pounds, with a round face and oriental eyes. Sergeant Barefield testified that after leaving Mr. Baker, he went to the scene of the crime and from the interviews he conducted at that time, discovered a name of a person who was rumored to have committed the crime. He ran the name through the police computer, but due to the lack of an accurate name, he received no information. He testified that in order to receive information from the computer, a proper name, or a similar name and a birthdate must be fed into the computer. In order to obtain a birthdate on the person who allegedly committed the crime, he went to the high school located about three blocks from the Ride Service Station. Sergeant Barefield obtained the full name of James Douglas Watkins, the appellant, and a birthdate. From a file the school kept on dropouts, he obtained the junior high school picture of the appellant and four other junior high school pictures of teenagers of similar appearance.
From the school, Sergeant Barefield brought the pictures to Mr. Baker, who was then listed as in critical condition in the intensive care unit at the hospital. Sergeant Barefield testified that he was afraid Mr. Baker would not live long. From the five junior high school pictures, Mr. Baker picked out the appellant, but stated that it was hard to identify him from pictures of children.
Sergeant Barefield then returned to the police station and ran the proper name and birthdate through the police computer. He received a more recent photograph of the appellant, which he brought to the hospital along with five other photographs of men of similar appearance and age, for Mr. Baker to view. Mr. Baker quickly selected the appellant from this photographic line-up. At this time, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Watkins.
After the appellant had been arrested the following day, Sergeant Barefield brought Mr. Baker the third photographic line-up. It was a single picture of five men, one of whom was the appellant. The appellant was the only man who was standing straight in that picture; the four other men had their knees bent. Baker once again identified Watkins as the man who shot him.
The only issue we will address in this case is whether the appellant's due process rights were violated by the failure of the trial court to grant appellant's motion to suppress the in-court identification of the appellant by Mr. Baker.
The standard was established by the United States Supreme Court in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial