Shaw v. State, 74 So. 3d 379

Xavier Shaw was tried in Coahoma County Circuit Court on armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and aggravated assault.
The victims, Spencer and Williams, described a Black male with an Afro who wore a bandana and blue shorts with a white stripe during the robbery.
A gun was pointed; Williams’s wallet was taken; a gun misfired when Williams was threatened.
Two days after the robbery, Spencer and Williams identified Shaw in a photographic lineup and again at trial.
The State relied on eyewitness testimony and surrounding circumstantial evidence; Shaw challenged the weight of the evidence and the lineup.
The trial court denied Shaw’s post-trial motions; the court of appeals affirms the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the lineup violate due process and affect reliability?	Shaw argues lineup was impermissibly suggestive.	State contends lineup was not so impermissibly suggestive as to cause misidentification.	Lineup not impermissibly suggestive; identifications reliable.
Were the verdicts against the overwhelming weight of the evidence?	Weight of eyewitness testimony contradicted by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.	Identifications plus circumstantial evidence support guilt.	No, the verdicts do not weight against the evidence.
Is the standard for reliability of in-court identifications correctly applied?	York analysis supports exclusion if reliability not met.	Identifications were reliable under York factors.	York factors support reliability of in-court identifications.
Was any objection to the lineup required to preserve appellate review?	Objecting contemporaneously would preserve error.	No objection was made; review waived.	Objection waived; review not required.

York v. State, 413 So.2d 1372 (Miss. 1982) (guide for reliability of in-court identifications post-impermissive pretrial identifications)
Brown v. State, 829 So.2d 93 (Miss. 2002) (lineup impermissive when accused conspicuously singled out)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005) (weight-of-evidence standard for new-trial motions)
Langston v. State, 791 So.2d 273 (Miss.2001) (do not reweigh facts on appeal)
Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942 (Miss.2000) (exceptional cases where new trial is warranted due to weight of evidence)
Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473 (Miss.2002) (objection timing not mandatory review trigger)
York v. State, 413 So.2d 1372 (Miss.1982) (standard for when in-court identifications are reliable despite suggestive pretrial identifications)