State of Tennessee v. Karloss Thirkill and Rico Huey
W2016-00335-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Dec. 9, 2011 aggravated robbery at a motel: two African‑American men (one shorter/heftier, one taller/slimmer) entered, assaulted David Rodriguez at gunpoint, and stole his pants/wallet/truck/tools. Jo (Jo Elizabeth) Randle was present and later identified as involved.
- Police conducted photographic lineups on Dec. 17, 2011 and Feb. 12, 2012. Rodriguez tentatively marked a Dec. 17 photo of Rico Huey but made positive identifications of Huey, Karloss Thirkill, and Randle in the Feb. 12 lineups. The Feb. 12 Huey photo was a different, clearer image. Trial court suppressed the Dec. 17 identification of Huey but admitted the Feb. 12 identifications.
- Huey moved to suppress identifications and argued the parties had a consent agreement to suppress both lineups; the State withdrew consent and the court held an evidentiary hearing. Huey’s motion to dismiss was denied.
- At trial the victim and Randle identified both defendants; Randle gave variant accounts but confirmed both men entered and attacked the victim. Defendants convicted by jury of aggravated robbery; sentences: Thirkill 11 years, Huey 9 years.
- Posttrial appeals: Huey challenges partial denial of suppression (and alleged breach of consent agreement); Thirkill challenges exclusion of evidence of Randle’s other alleged robberies (Rule 404/608) and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether a previously discussed consent to suppress bound the court and precluded an evidentiary hearing | No enforceable consent existed; State withdrew incomplete oral consent and the court properly held a hearing | Huey: parties agreed in court to suppress both lineups; the court should have enforced that consent | Court: No meeting of the minds or written consent order; hearing and ruling were proper. |
| 2) Whether the Feb. 12, 2012 photographic lineup was unduly suggestive / identification unreliable | Feb. 12 lineup was not impermissibly suggestive; even if somewhat suggestive, Biggers factors show reliability (opportunity, attention, accuracy, certainty, time lapse) | Huey: Feb. 12 lineup was tainted because Huey appeared in both lineups and could cause misidentification; second ID unreliable | Court: Feb. 12 identifications admissible; trial court’s factual findings (shock worn off, clearer photo, certainty) are supported. |
| 3) Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding testimony about Randle’s alleged other robberies under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) and 608(b) | Evidence of other robberies was more prejudicial than probative; admitting it risked unfair prejudice and would implicate co‑defendant Huey | Thirkill: prior similar acts by Randle tend to show identity/innocence of Thirkill and impeach Randle’s credibility | Court: Trial court followed Rule 404(b)/608(b) procedures and did not abuse discretion in excluding the evidence. |
| 4) Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict Thirkill of aggravated robbery | State: victim and Randle identified Thirkill; testimony and corroborating facts support a rational juror’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt | Thirkill: witness dishonesty and inconsistencies mean no reliable proof linking him to the robbery | Court: Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, jury credibility findings sustain Thirkill’s aggravated robbery conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets factors for assessing reliability of pretrial identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability of identification outweighs suggestiveness under totality of circumstances)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (photographic identification suppressed only when there is very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (due process concerns only where police-arranged identification is suggestive and unnecessary)
- State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008) (Rule 404(b) exclusionary policy and risk of unfair prejudice)
- State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court’s factual findings after suppression hearing reviewed for preponderance; credibility determinations for trial court)