Ja'Ron Russell Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0034161

In March 2014 Alonzo Epps was robbed near his Newport News apartment: two men approached him, one (the gunman) pointed a 9mm, they took his wallet, phone, keys and drove off in his Chevrolet Impala. Epps said both men wore black jackets, T-shirts, and jeans and stood about five feet from him during the robbery.
Hours later in Richmond police attempted to stop an Impala; four occupants fled. Officer J. Umbel testified another officer detained Turner two blocks from the Impala, out of breath, dirt-covered, and wearing black clothing. Umbel observed similar conditions when he saw Turner.
Turner was searched incident to arrest on an outstanding warrant and found with two of Epps’s stolen credit cards and a loaded 9mm handgun; police confirmed the stopped Impala was Epps’s vehicle.
Epps viewed a seven-photo lineup the day after the robbery but selected a different person; at trial (over 18 months later) Epps identified Turner as the gunman, explaining the earlier misidentification by reference to Turner’s eye condition at the time of the crime.
The trial court (bench trial) convicted Turner of robbery, carjacking, and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony; Turner appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of identity and (2) erroneous admission of hearsay through Officer Umbel’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of identification evidence	Commonwealth: Epps’s eyewitness ID, corroborated by Turner’s possession of stolen cards, a 9mm, flight from the scene, clothing match, and being near the victim’s car, suffices to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt	Turner: Photo lineup misidentification and delay before in-court ID rendered identification insufficient	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trial court reasonably found the totality of circumstances (Biggers factors plus corroborating physical evidence) sufficient to prove identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility of hearsay (officer’s out-of-court statements)	Commonwealth: Umbel’s testimony recounting another officer’s observations was offered to explain Umbel’s subsequent actions, not to prove the truth of those observations	Turner: Umbel’s recounting of the other officer’s observations was inadmissible hearsay	Affirmed — the testimony was admitted to explain police conduct (not for its truth) and thus was not hearsay; trial court did not abuse discretion

Leigh v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 583, 66 S.E.2d 586 (affirming standard to view evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identification)
Upchurch v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 408, 258 S.E.2d 506 (hearsay rule does not bar statements admitted merely to explain the listener’s subsequent conduct)
Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 584 S.E.2d 444 (presumption of correctness for trial court verdict in sufficiency review)
Cuffee v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 353, 735 S.E.2d 693 (examining identification sufficiency under Biggers factors)