Porter v. the State, 341 Ga. App. 632

On Aug. 9, 2013, Porter drove four co-defendants to a Gwinnett County residence after telling them a caller had “nice things” and was an “easy target.”
Porter and a female co-defendant entered the home twice; the second entry involved three male co-defendants forcing entry, one displaying a gun, beating victims, and stealing phones and a car key; one victim was shot.
After leaving the scene, Porter was stopped by DeKalb County police for a traffic/ID issue; officers found a handgun in the vehicle and learned of the Gwinnett home invasion, then brought two victims to the traffic stop for a show-up identification.
Victim P.C. positively identified Porter at the show-up; another victim, R.J., did not identify her. Co-defendants Porter and Harvey also implicated Porter at trial.
Porter was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced to 20 years; she appealed challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) admission of custodial statements after an asserted request for counsel, and (3) admission of the victims’ show-up identification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for armed robbery	Porter: evidence did not prove she knowingly participated in or aided the robbery	State: victim IDs and co-defendant testimony show Porter planned, drove the group, and participated	Affirmed — evidence sufficient (victim ID + accomplice testimony and corroboration)
Admissibility of custodial statements after asserted request for counsel	Porter: she invoked right to counsel; subsequent statements should be excluded	State: her initial comment was not an unequivocal request; later statements were redundant and interrogation ceased after a clear request	Affirmed — initial remark not unequivocal; later "I need a lawyer" stopped interrogation; statements admitted properly
Admissibility of show-up identification	Porter: the show-up (victims together, officer language) was impermissibly suggestive and risked misidentification	State: officer gave cautionary instructions; P.C. had close-range opportunity to view Porter; corroboration reduced risk of misidentification	Affirmed — even if suggestive, no substantial likelihood of misidentification

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Mack v. State, 296 Ga. 239 (2014) (review standard for suppression rulings and custodial invocation analysis)
State v. Philpot, 299 Ga. 206 (custodial-rights invocation must be clear enough for a reasonable officer to understand)
Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (show-up identifications admissible unless substantial likelihood of misidentification exists)
Brooks v. State, 271 Ga. 698 (statements that, in context, are not clear invocations of counsel do not require immediate cessation of questioning)