Redding v. State
296 Ga. 471
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Victim Nelson Mann was shot and killed on April 29, 2010; Carlos Redding was arrested and later tried for malice murder and related firearm offenses.
- Multiple eyewitnesses identified Redding as the shooter; Redding admitted being present but claimed a friend fired the shots.
- Photographic lineup used pretrial included Redding’s photo with a lighter (white) background while others had gray backgrounds.
- During jury deliberations, jurors asked whether the defendant had to be the actual actor or could be part of a group; the court declined a direct answer and recharged the jury to the indictment and prior instructions.
- Trial court limited cross-examination about a prosecution witness’s alleged first-offender probation status; Redding did not proffer evidence that the witness was on probation or that such status created bias.
- Redding was convicted; he appealed arguing (1) improper jury response, (2) improper limitation on cross-examination, (3) denial of motion to suppress photographic identifications, and (4) sufficiency of the evidence (which he did not contest on appeal but the Court reviewed).
Issues
| Issue | Redding's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove Redding was the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt | Eyewitness IDs and admissions support convictions | Evidence was legally sufficient; conviction affirmed (Jackson standard) |
| Jury question about whether defendant must be the actual actor or may be part of a group | Court should have answered "yes, it must be the defendant" or otherwise clearly precluded party liability; court’s non-direct answer was improper | Court properly exercised discretion in declining to directly instruct on parties theory, instead recharged burden, presumption, and indictment language | No plain error: court’s recharge and reference to indictment/instructions were proper and did not affect substantial rights |
| Limitation on cross-examination re: witness first-offender/probation status | Redding sought to show bias by eliciting witness’s probation/first-offender status | No evidence was offered or proffered that witness was on probation or that status bore on motivation; trial court discretion to exclude | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion because Redding failed to show the witness’s probationary status or its connection to bias |
| Suppression of pretrial photographic identifications | Photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive because Redding’s photo had a white background while others were gray, creating substantial risk of misidentification | Slight background differences do not make a lineup impermissibly suggestive; subsequent equivocations do not invalidate an earlier unequivocal ID | Denial of suppression affirmed: differences were slight and not unduly suggestive; later in-court equivocations do not retroactively invalidate pretrial IDs |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Guajardo v. State, 290 Ga. 172 (plain-error review of unpreserved jury-instruction objections)
- Kimmel v. State, 261 Ga. 332 (trial court not required to engage in Q&A with jury or instruct how law applies to facts)
- Green v. State, 291 Ga. 287 (minor photograph differences do not render lineup impermissibly suggestive)
- Armour v. State, 290 Ga. 553 (proponent must show witness actually on probation and link to bias)
- Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 445 (trial court may exclude cross-examination absent evidence connecting first-offender status to motive)