Lovelady v. State
307 Ga. App. 788
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- On June 23, 2007, an armed robbery occurred at a convenience store; a manager observed a man with a ski mask and gun in the early morning hours.
- Two days later, investigators showed the convenience store manager an eight-photo array including Lovelady; she identified Lovelady from the array as the robber.
- Earlier that week, the supermarket manager also identified Lovelady as resembling the man seen near the supermarket prior to the robbery.
- Lovelady moved to suppress the witnesses' pre-trial identifications, arguing the photo array was impermissibly suggestive due to differences among the photographs.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Lovelady appealed to challenge the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the photo array was impermissibly suggestive | Lovelady argues the array's differences created impermissible suggestiveness. | State contends no impermissible suggestiveness; variations do not render the array unreliable. | No impermissible suggestiveness; suppression not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 286 Ga. 74 (2009) (standard for impermissible suggestiveness in identification procedures)
- Karim v. State, 244 Ga.App. 282 (2000) (examines variations in photo arrays and impact on suggestiveness)
- Clark v. State, 279 Ga. 243 (2005) (variations among array photos do not automatically render it impermissibly suggestive)
- Williams v. State, 275 Ga. 622 (2002) (minor differences in photographs not inherently prejudicial)
- Miller v. State, 270 Ga. 741 (1999) (no impermissible suggestiveness from differences in facial hair or hair style)
- State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98 (2009) (trial court may believe or disbelieve witness testimony on suppression ruling)