Harris v. the State
332 Ga. App. 789
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- On May 3, 2010, at about 11:30 a.m., a pizza delivery to Apartment M-11 in Pendleton Homes was robbed at gunpoint of about $95.
- Police traced the call to a cell phone used by Harris via his girlfriend’s sister; the sister admitted the number belonged to Harris and that he sometimes stayed with their sister in Pendleton Homes.
- Another sister showed police a red sweatshirt worn by the robber; Harris’s girlfriend stated Harris had been at the Pendleton Homes apartment that morning, leaving with a black shirt and later returning wearing a red sweatshirt with around $100.
- Three days after the robbery, the driver identified Harris from a six-picture photographic lineup.
- Prior to trial, the State sought to admit evidence of a 2004 robbery by intimidation; Harris pled guilty to that prior offense.
- The trial court admitted the similar-transaction evidence, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for armed robbery | Harris argues the evidence is insufficient. | State presented sufficient evidence to convict. | Evidence was sufficient for a rational finder of fact to convict. |
| Admissibility of pretrial identification from a photo lineup | Lineup was impermissibly suggestive and should be suppressed. | The lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. | Trial court properly admitted the identification; lineup not impermissibly suggestive. |
| Admissibility of similar transaction evidence (2004 robbery by intimidation) | Evidence should be excluded under character-inference rules. | Evidence properly admissible to show bent of mind/course of conduct and similarity. | Similar transaction evidence properly admitted under governing law at the time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict; determine rational proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Clark v. State, 283 Ga. App. 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (factors for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- Karim v. State, 244 Ga. App. 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Russell v. State, 288 Ga. App. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (test for impermissibly suggestive pretrial identifications)
- Davis v. State, 286 Ga. 74 (Ga. 2009) (taint through identification procedures; factors for admissibility)
- Miller v. State, 270 Ga. 741 (Ga. 1999) (lineup facial-hair considerations in determining suggestiveness)
- Daniels v. State, 281 Ga. 226 (Ga. 2006) (focus on similarities, not differences, when admitting similar-transaction evidence)
- Thompson v. State, 240 Ga. App. 26 (Ga. App. 1999) (photographic lineup not impermissibly suggestive despite minor inconsistencies)
- Faniel v. State, 291 Ga. 559 (Ga. 2012) (limits on admissibility of similar transactions; focus on similarities)
- Matthews v. State, 294 Ga. 50 (Ga. 2013) (proper application of similar-transaction rule; bent of mind and course of conduct)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (Ga. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard in admitting evidence)