Marlon Little v. State of Mississippi
233 So. 3d 311
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 31, 2013, victim Danny Ellis was robbed at gunpoint; attacker wore a hoodie that partially obscured his face. Ellis had never seen the attacker before.
- Immediately after, Ellis described the assailant to police as a clean-shaven, stocky African‑American male in his mid‑to‑late twenties.
- Police received an informant tip identifying Marlon Little; a seven‑photo lineup was shown one week later and Ellis identified Little (photo 4). Little is 40, tall and thin, with gold teeth and a goatee; he was the only lineup photo with pronounced nasolabial folds, which Ellis relied on in identifying him.
- No physical evidence (gun or wallet) was recovered and no further investigation was performed. Trial occurred about six weeks after the robbery; several defense witnesses were unavailable and a continuance was denied.
- Little was convicted of armed robbery and felon‑in‑possession; his motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the eyewitness identification unreliable given the initial inconsistent description and the absence of corroborating evidence. A dissent argued the majority improperly acted as a “thirteenth juror” and would have affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction is against the weight of the evidence because the sole substantive proof was the victim’s testimony and the initial description conflicted with identification of Little | State: Victim’s in‑court/photo lineup ID is sufficient to support conviction; uncorroborated eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction | Little: Initial description (age, build, clean‑shaven) materially differed from Little’s appearance, undermining reliability of the ID; no corroborating evidence | Reversed and remanded for new trial—the court found the weight of evidence heavily preponderates against the verdict where the only substantive proof was an ID inconsistent with the initial description |
| Whether an identification is unreliable when the witness’s prior description conflicts with later lineup identification absent corroboration | State: Prior description inconsistencies do not automatically preclude conviction; prior cases permit convictions on uncorroborated IDs when reliable | Little: The inconsistency here (age/build/facial hair) plus lack of other proof made the ID unreliable | Held for Little: Court emphasized that conflicting initial description plus lack of additional substantive proof justified granting a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (discusses appellate role as “thirteenth juror” and when conflicting description may warrant new trial)
- Renfro v. State, 118 So.3d 560 (Miss. 2013) (uncorroborated eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction)
- Pritchett v. State, 134 So.3d 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (upholding ID where witness accurately described defendant before lineup)
- Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 468 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (prior description accuracy is a factor in evaluating lineup reliability)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (distinction between reversals for insufficiency and for weight of the evidence; discussion of appellate review)
- Amiker v. Drugs For Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942 (Miss. 2000) (trial judge’s superiority in assessing witnesses and discussion of new‑trial discretion)