Gerald Gerrod Darby v. State
14-14-00687-CR
Tex.Oct 27, 2015Background
- In April, Alejandro Panjoj-Morales awoke to two men in his apartment and saw the profile of one man for 4–7 seconds; a laptop was stolen.
- A neighbor and apartment employees observed two African‑American men leaving the complex; employees chased them and flagged down police.
- Police detained two suspects nearby, performed a show‑up identification with Morales (he identified one detained man as the intruder), and arrested appellant Gerald Darby; a backpack was not recovered.
- At trial Morales, two apartment employees, and officers identified Darby as the person taken into custody; one officer testified Darby said the backpack would never be found.
- A jury convicted Darby of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft and, after finding two prior‑felony enhancements true, assessed punishment at 62 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of in‑court ID after show‑up | Show‑up was necessary and not impermissibly suggestive; in‑court ID admissible | Show‑up was suggestive (single person, no photo array) and tainted in‑court ID | Show‑up not impermissibly suggestive under totality; in‑court ID admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary conviction | Multiple witnesses placed Darby at scene; arrests and identifications support conviction | Conviction rests solely on allegedly tainted ID and is therefore insufficient | Evidence (IDs, eyewitnesses, location of arrest, statements) sufficient beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of proof for Enhancement Paragraph One (prior conviction county mismatch) | Prior conviction proved by judgment despite county name mismatch; variance immaterial | Variance (indictment says Grayson County; judgment says Fannin County) is material and defeats enhancement | Variance immaterial: same cause number, court number, date, and offense; defendant not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (framework for reliability of identifications and due process limits)
- Garza v. State, 633 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses benefits and safeguards of show‑up identifications)
- Delk v. State, 855 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Crim. App.) (two‑step test for impermissible suggestiveness and likelihood of misidentification)
- Mendoza v. State, 443 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (recognizes necessity of prompt show‑ups in some cases)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App.) (variance doctrine: proof must not show an entirely different offense than charged)
- Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App.) (approach to materiality of variance between indictment and proof)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App.) (variance analysis and prejudice requirement)
- Freda v. State, 704 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App.) (lesser particularity required for alleging enhancements)
- Benton v. State, 770 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (variance in enhancement details found immaterial)