Tucker v. State
316 Ga. App. 119
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tucker was convicted on one count burglary and one count criminal interference with government property; he moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied, and he appeals the denial.
- The appeal challenges a pre-trial identification by a witness (Beringause) as impermissibly suggestive and improperly admitted.
- Police conducted a showup of the two suspects about 30 minutes after the witness’s initial call, with details matching the observed two men.
- Tucker had been stopped earlier the same day in a silver Impala; he wore binoculars and gloves, and a jacket later found in the car matched the clothing described by the witness.
- The trial court applied a two-part test for showups and held that, under the totality-of-circumstances, the identification was reliable, and the showup was admissible.
- Evidence of a separate burglary, in which Tucker pled guilty, was also introduced by the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the showup identification was impermissibly suggestive. | Tucker argues the showup was impermissibly suggestive. | State contends showup was reasonably conducted and non-impermissibly suggestive. | No reversible error; identification reliable under totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 295 Ga. App. 452 (2009) (on-scene showups may be necessary and not impermissibly suggestive if fair under circumstances)
- Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (2012) (two-part test for showups; if no substantial likelihood of misidentification, no need to analyze first prong)
- Scruggs v. State, 309 Ga. App. 569 (2011) (identity for the jury; credibility of identification goes to the jury)