Freeman v. State, 306 Ga. App. 783

Freeman appeals his armed robbery conviction in the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Incident occurred July 30, 2008, between 11:15 and 11:30 p.m. at a Texaco on Jodeco Road, Henry County.
Clerk described the robber as about 5'10"–5'11", wearing black clothing, a black scarf, a beard, and sideburns; gun and money were taken.
Police located Freeman within minutes after a BOLO, detaining him for a showup identification.
Victim identified Freeman at the showup with high certainty, noting two differences (T-shirt color and head scarf) but affirming his face and beard.
Freeman challenged the denial of his motions to suppress identification evidence and for a directed verdict; the trial court denied both, and the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Freeman argues evidence is insufficient.	State asserts victim's testimony alone suffices.	Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction.
Suppression of identification	Freeman contends showup was impermissibly suggestive.	State maintains showup reliability under totality of circumstances.	Showup not impermissibly suggestive; identification admissible.

Hall v. State, 282 Ga. 294 (2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
Smith v. State, 246 Ga.App. 191 (2000) (single witness may support conviction)
Jones v. State, 214 Ga.App. 788 (1994) (credibility of eyewitness identifications weighs with jury)
Whitmore v. State, 289 Ga.App. 107 (2008) (trial court findings on suppression upheld if supported by evidence)
Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. 246 (2009) (one-on-one showups inherently suggestive but admissible if reliable)
Fitzgerald v. State, 279 Ga.App. 67 (2006) (evaluation of reliability under totality of circumstances for showups)
Crawford v. State, 297 Ga.App. 187 (2009) (proper handling of suppression rulings on identification evidence)
Young v. State, 272 Ga.App. 304 (2005) (lighting and proximity factors in identification reliability)