Singleton v. State
324 Ga. App. 141
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Singleton and Milam were convicted of armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
- Singleton challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the superintendent’s pretrial and trial identifications as the result of an impermissibly suggestive showup.
- The robbery occurred at a housing-project construction site in a trailer; the superintendent was robbed at gunpoint and property was taken.
- Police located Singleton and Milam a short time after the crime; the superintendent identified both at a showup and again in court.
- The showup occurred roughly two hours after the crime; officers noted clothing and physical descriptions and later confronted other suspects who were ruled out.
- Singleton separately challenges whether the jury was impanelled and sworn before arraignment, arguing there was no plea entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of showup identifications | Singleton argues showup was impermissibly suggestive and suppressible. | Milam argues reliability under totality of circumstances makes identification admissible. | Showup did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification; identifications admissible. |
| Arraignment and jury trial | Record shows no arraignment or not guilty plea; trial before arraignment violated joining of issue. | Indictment implies waiver of arraignment by silent acquiescence; no objection in record. | Presumed waiver of arraignment; no relief for Singleton. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (2012) (factors for identifying unreliable pretrial identifications; showup reliability)
- Tucker v. State, 316 Ga. App. 119 (2012) (showup likelihood of misidentification; daylight crime considerations)
- Mercer v. State, 268 Ga. 856 (1998) (several factors supporting admissibility of identification when time and observation were sufficient)
- Jones v. State, 258 Ga. 25 (1988) (in-court identification not tainted where scene observation was detailed)
- Hudson v. State, 117 Ga. 704 (1903) (waiver of arraignment by failure to raise issue; not grounds for reversal)
- Gomillon v. State, 236 Ga. App. 14 (1999) (arraignment waiver when defendant unaware of charges)
- Bunn v. State, 150 Ga. App. 294 (1979) (waiver of arraignment by lack of objection; conclusive presumption of waiver)