Tiquishia Qurena Carroll v. State
14-14-00178-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 20, 2015Background
- Around 11:00 p.m. on Jan. 17, 2013, Joe Blanco was robbed at gunpoint in an apartment parking lot; he dropped his keys, phone, and bag and saw the assailant put items into the bag and drive off in his car.
- Blanco used his phone’s GPS to locate the phone; within an hour police arrested Tiquisha Carroll driving Blanco’s vehicle and found Blanco’s phone in her pocket and a small pistol in the car matching the robber’s weapon description.
- Blanco performed a show-up identification and identified Carroll from about ten feet away; he later identified her at trial.
- A supplemental report, disclosed during the State’s case, showed Carroll’s fingerprints did not appear on the gun; the disclosure occurred about three weeks before trial but was not in the earlier provided offense report.
- Defense did not object to the in-court identification at trial, declined to call the fingerprint examiner, did not request a continuance, and moved for a directed verdict after the State rested; jury convicted Carroll of aggravated robbery and sentenced her to 25 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carroll) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Brady/delayed disclosure of exculpatory fingerprint report | Late disclosure of fingerprint results deprived Carroll of due process and prejudiced her defense | Disclosure occurred before cross-examination, defense could have used it, and no continuance was requested; no prejudice | Not preserved/prejudiced: Carroll failed to request continuance or otherwise preserve Brady complaint; no reversible Brady error |
| 2. Admission of in-court ID (tainted by show-up) | In-court ID was tainted by suggestive pretrial show-up and should have been excluded; denial of directed verdict was error | Even if ID were tainted, sufficient other evidence supports conviction; failure to timely object waived the complaint | Waived: no objection at trial; directed-verdict challenge not proper vehicle to raise admissibility; sufficient evidence regardless |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence on identity | Evidence insufficient to link Carroll to robbery (description mismatch, single eyewitness, no fingerprints, possible intervening possessor) | Possession of stolen car and items, phone found on Carroll, gun in car, show-up ID, and timing allow reasonable inferences of guilt | Sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewing legal-sufficiency in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (acquittal vs. new trial distinctions on sufficiency review)
- Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure to object to identification procedure waives complaint)
- Lindley v. State, 635 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure to request continuance waives surprise from late disclosure)