midpage
325 Ga. App. 509
Ga. Ct. App.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • McCowan was convicted after a jury trial of two armed-robbery counts, four aggravated-assault counts, one burglary, and two false-imprisonment counts.
  • He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the pre-trial photographic lineup identification.
  • The offenses occurred on July 13, 2009 surrounding an assault and robbery at a Stay Lodge hotel in Rome.
  • Emanuel Orr transported McCowan and Kidd; McCowan and Kidd later robbed the Dickersons and attempted ATM withdrawal.
  • The Dickersons identified McCowan and Kidd from separate photo lineups; Consuela identified McCowan, Rufus identified McCowan later.
  • The trial court denied the suppression motion; McCowan appealed, arguing the lineup was impermissibly suggestive and prejudicial.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the pre-trial lineup was impermissibly suggestive McCowan argues the lineup was suggestive and prejudicial. McCowan contends the method created a substantial risk of misidentification. No reversible error; lineup not impermissibly suggestive under totality of circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

  • Ivey v. State, 277 Ga. 875 (Ga. 2004) (pre-trial identification not impermissibly suggestive in some contexts)
  • Parker v. State, 273 Ga. App. 823 (Ga. App. 2005) (upholding denial of suppression with simultaneous array)
  • Russell v. State, 319 Ga. App. 472 (Ga. App. 2012) (discusses standard for evaluating taint in identifications)
  • Stephens v. State, 247 Ga. App. 719 (Ga. App. 2001) (cited for standard related to suppression rulings)
  • 443 U.S. 307, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (implicit guidance on procedural taint in identification procedures)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: McCowan v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jan 9, 2014
Citations: 325 Ga. App. 509; 753 S.E.2d 775; A13A2143
Docket Number: A13A2143
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
Log In