State of Tennessee v. Rhakim Martin
2016 Tenn. LEXIS 728
| Tenn. | 2016Background
- Victim was carjacked at gunpoint on May 22, 2011; she saw the assailant’s face and described distinctive features.
- Victim independently checked the county-operated “Shelby County Who’s In Jail?” booking-photo website and later recognized the defendant’s booking photo before viewing a formal police photo array.
- Police arrested Rhakim Martin after finding the victim’s stolen Toyota Camry abandoned and discovering citations with Martin’s name; victim then identified Martin in a photographic array at the police station.
- Indictment charged Martin with (1) carjacking and (2) employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; the firearm count referenced the statutory definition of “dangerous felony” but did not name the predicate felony.
- Trial court denied Martin’s motion to suppress the identification, refused a requested lesser-included instruction (possession of a firearm during a dangerous felony), and convicted Martin on both counts; effective 16-year sentence.
- On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, issues were suppression for suggestive ID, lesser-included instruction plain error, indictment sufficiency re: unnamed predicate felony, double jeopardy/§ 39-17-1324(c), and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Martin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ID after victim viewed county booking photo website | Website posting was not police-arranged; victim’s viewing was independent so identification is admissible | Viewing a county-operated booking photo before the lineup was state action that tainted identification as unduly suggestive | No state action; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Failure to give lesser-included instruction (possession of firearm) | No plain-error relief because defendant cannot show reasonable probability jury would convict only of possession | Trial court erred by not instructing on possession as lesser-included of employment | Waived below; plain error denied — overwhelming evidence showed employment, not mere possession |
| Indictment’s failure to name predicate felony for firearm count | Indictment as whole gave adequate notice; referencing the dangerous-felony statute suffices | Omitting the predicate felony denied constitutionally adequate notice | Count sufficient under the Court’s contemporaneous holding in State v. Duncan; indictment upheld |
| Double jeopardy and § 39-17-1324(c) challenge | Statute permits separate punishment; carjacking count alleged force/intimidation (not necessarily use of deadly weapon) so dual convictions are allowed | Dual convictions amount to multiple punishments for the same offense / § 39-17-1324(c) bars charging when employment is an essential element of the predicate | No double jeopardy violation; § 39-17-1324(c) inapplicable because carjacking was charged by force/intimidation, not as an essential firearm element |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (Sup. Ct.) (pretrial photographic identifications suppressed only if procedure so suggestive as to create substantial likelihood of misidentification)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (Sup. Ct.) (due process limits on identification procedures)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Sup. Ct.) (reliability inquiry and deterrence rationale for excluding suggestive IDs)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (Sup. Ct.) (factors for reliability of eyewitness identification)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (Sup. Ct.) (no due process violation absent state-arranged suggestive procedure)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Sup. Ct.) (test for whether separate statutory offenses constitute same offense for double jeopardy)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (Tennessee’s framework for double jeopardy analysis)