Tabias Dayon McClain v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1838162
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- On Jan. 18, 2016, James Phillip Gibrall was shot in the back after a failed drug transaction behind the City Motel in Richmond; he had been face-to-face with the shooter under a streetlight.
- Gibrall used crack and drank earlier that day; he initially misled police at the scene about the location and identity of the shooter, saying he didn’t know.
- Police developed Tabias Dayon McClain (nicknamed “Lump”) as a suspect and prepared a photo array.
- Eleven days after the shooting (Jan. 29, 2016) Gibrall selected McClain’s photograph from a double-blind photo array with 95% confidence; at trial he made an in-court identification.
- McClain was charged with malicious wounding (Va. Code § 18.2-51) and using a firearm in the commission of that felony (Va. Code § 18.2-53.1); after a bench trial the circuit court convicted him of both counts.
- On appeal McClain argued (1) the in-court identification was unreliable (invoking Neil v. Biggers factors) and (2) the evidence was insufficient; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClain) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/reliability of in-court identification | Identification unreliable due to witness intoxication, inconsistencies, delay, and possible suggestiveness of the photo array; Biggers factors weigh against reliability | No constitutional challenge or suppression motion at trial; credibility is for the factfinder; no due-process violation shown | Court declined to reweigh credibility on appeal; Biggers inapplicable absent a preserved due-process challenge; identification admissible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | Without reliable ID, remaining evidence (no physical link) is insufficient and creates reasonable doubt | Eyewitness ID alone may be sufficient if credible; court found Gibrall credible based on opportunity to view and certainty | Evidence (victim ID) was sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Application of Neil v. Biggers | Biggers factors should lead to exclusion or doubt about in-court ID | Biggers is the test only when an out-of-court procedure is shown to have violated due process (Wade/Gilbert/Stovall); here no timely challenge was raised | Biggers analysis not controlling absent a preserved due-process objection; appellate court will not substitute its credibility determinations |
| Appellate standard of review for credibility issues | Urged appellate reexamination of witness credibility to overturn conviction | Credibility determinations are for trial factfinder; appellate court reviews sufficiency viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor; only inherently incredible testimony can be disturbed | Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility findings and affirms conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets factors for assessing reliability of identification when out-of-court procedure may be tainted)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (due process limits on suggestive identification procedures)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) (same)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (same)
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 854 (1991) (testimony may be disturbed on appeal only if inherently incredible)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (principles about appellate review and consideration of evidence admitted at trial)