Carlos Hale v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 482
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Martinez was robbed at gunpoint outside her Forest Hills apartment by two men; Hale was identified as one of the robbers through a show-up conducted soon after the crime.
- Police stopped a silver vehicle matching the description and detained four occupants, including Hale and Stott.
- Martinez identified Hale and Stott at the scene; a purple cell phone cover and cash were found on Hale.
- The State charged Hale with class B felony robbery; trial occurred with Martinez’s in-court identification and testimony about the show-up.
- Hale did not object at trial to the show-up identification; the jury found Hale guilty as charged and the court sentenced him to seven years with DOC and one year in community corrections.
- Hale appeals arguing the show-up was unduly suggestive and that admission of the show-up constitutes fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the show-up identification unduly suggestive? | Hale argues the handcuffed display during show-up was unduly suggestive. | Hale contends the show-up was inherently suggestive and grounds for reversal. | No reversible error; totality of circumstances supported admissibility. |
| Did Hale waive the issue by failing to object, and does fundamental error apply? | Waiver due to lack of contemporaneous objection; fundamental error claimed. | Even with waiver, claim should be reviewed as fundamental error. | Waiver applies; fundamental error not established. |
| Does in-court identification provide independent basis, making show-up error harmless? | In-court identification by Martinez supports Hale’s conviction regardless of show-up. | In-court ID could be tainted if show-up was improper; otherwise jeopardized. | Independent in-court identification provided sufficient basis; no fundamental error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1999) (due process requires suppression of unduly suggestive pretrial identifications)
- Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2000) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve identification issue)
- Brown v. State, 577 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. 1991) (in-court identification independent of pretrial show-up if witness had opportunity to observe crime)