Widner v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A0164,A92A0164 |
| Citation | 203 Ga.App. 823,418 S.E.2d 105 |
| Parties | WIDNER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gerard P. Verzaal, Cartersville, for appellant.
Darrell E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Mickey R. Thacker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Widner was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41), and possession of a firearm during the commission of the robbery (OCGA § 16-11-106(b)(1)).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict (Gurlaskie v. State, 196 Ga.App. 794, 795, 397 S.E.2d 66 (1990)), the evidence shows that while the victim was walking home from a friend's house carrying his "game rooster," Widner approached the victim in his car, pulled a gun, and stole the chicken. The victim, and friends who were with him when the robbery occurred, reported the robbery, and gave the police a description of the armed robber and his car. Based on the general description, the investigating officer included a photograph of Widner in a photographic lineup conducted two days after the robbery from which the victim and others present at the robbery picked Widner as the armed robber. Based on the identification and descriptions of the robbery, and police investigation, police charged Widner with the robbery, and obtained a warrant to search Widner's car for the gun and chicken feathers. The search produced one chicken feather which was introduced as evidence in the State's case. The victim and one of his friends present during the robbery positively identified Widner at trial as the armed robber.
1. Widner claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the victim's and one other eyewitness's photographic identification of Widner prior to trial, evidence of which was introduced at trial. Widner argues that the pre-trial photographic identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and tainted the eyewitness identification at trial. (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Graham v. State, 171 Ga.App. 242, 253, 319 S.E.2d 484 (1984). Widner's claim is that of the six photographs displayed, his image was larger and bolder, his head was slightly turned, and he had the longest hair of anyone pictured. Neither the variance in size and texture of the photographs, nor the slight turn of Widner's head renders the procedure impermissibly suggestive. Simpson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 439, 440, 388 S.E.2d 39 (1989). The armed robber was described after the robbery as having long hair. All six men depicted in the photographic display had long hair, with Widner's being only somewhat longer than the others. The procedure was not impermissibly suggestive and the trial court did not err by denying the motion.
2. The trial court properly denied Widner's motion to suppress the results of the search of his car. The affidavit in support of the warrant was based on the victim's description of the robbery, the photographic identification of Widner, and a description of his car obtained by the officer's independent investigation. There was more than sufficient probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 327, 328, 326 S.E.2d 782 (1985).
3. Widner contends the evidence was insufficient to prove where the crime was committed, therefore the State failed to prove venue in Bartow County beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the armed robbery occurred while the victim was walking from a friend's house to his own house, both of which were located in the city of Kingston. The incident...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. State
...doubt of the offenses of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Widner v. State, 203 Ga.App. 823, 825(5), 418 S.E.2d 105. 2. The second enumeration of error contends that defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial. "......
-
Waller v. State
...S.E.2d 75 (1953): "We judicially know that the City of Atlanta is in the counties of Fulton and DeKalb." 2. See Widner v. State, 203 Ga.App. 823, 824(3), 418 S.E.2d 105 (1992), and the cases cited therein. 3. Harmon, supra (judicial cognizance of the county location of Atlanta street not ta......
-
Nelson v. State
...that this array was impermissibly suggestive. Selbo v. State, 186 Ga.App. 779, 781, 368 S.E.2d 548 (1988); see Widner v. State, 203 Ga.App. 823, 824(1), 418 S.E.2d 105 (1992) (unless array is impermissibly suggestive, the likelihood of irreparable misidentification need not be decided). Mor......
-
Seats v. State
...doubt of the offenses of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Widner v. State, 203 Ga.App. 823, 825(5), 418 S.E.2d 105. 2. Subsequent to the commission of the offenses of which defendant is convicted, but prior to defendant's trial, the l......