Wesley Carlton Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1938152

On Nov. 23, 2013, Wesley Smith and three companions planned a robbery (“catch a lick”), followed Rodney Beanum from a nightclub, confronted Beanum’s car, and forced occupants out at gunpoint; Beanum was later found dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
White (passenger) was assaulted, had cash taken, and heard multiple gunshots; items later recovered in the neighborhood included White’s iPhone, a Tennessee license plate, a roll of distinctive “Hello Kitty” duct tape matching tape on Beanum’s car, a pistol, and other items.
White initially told police he had never seen the assailants and was charged with obstruction of justice; he was interviewed multiple times and shown photo lineups; Smith’s photo was shown only on the third lineup (Dec. 12), and White identified Smith with 50–60% certainty.
Smith moved to suppress White’s out-of-court identification, arguing the lineup was unduly suggestive because White faced criminal charges and was repeatedly interviewed; the trial court denied suppression.
At trial, Smith was convicted of two counts of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery; he was acquitted of murder and some charges were struck; he appealed, challenging (1) denial of suppression and (2) sufficiency of evidence for one robbery count (arguing no property was taken from Beanum).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether the out-of-court photo identification should be suppressed as unduly suggestive	Lineup complied with policy, multiple interviews were investigation-driven, White testified he did not feel coerced; identification admissible	White was pressured by obstruction charge and repeated interviews, creating undue suggestion and risk of misidentification	Denial of suppression affirmed — lineup not unduly suggestive; court relied on White’s testimony and lineup procedure
Whether evidence was sufficient to support robbery conviction as to Beanum (i.e., property taken from Beanum’s person or presence)	Circumstantial evidence (distinctive duct tape matching car, other stolen items found) supports an inference items were taken from Beanum’s vehicle/presence during robbery	No evidence items were taken from Beanum specifically; only White’s property was shown to be taken, so second robbery conviction lacked evidence of a taking from Beanum	Conviction affirmed — jury reasonably inferred property (distinctive duct tape and related items) was taken from Beanum’s presence; circumstantial evidence sufficient

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability standard for suggestive identifications)
Miller v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 367 (two-part test for admissibility of out-of-court identification)
Winston v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 564 (burden on defendant to show photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive)
Lewis v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 126 (distinguishing facts where intent to rob victim not shown)
Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va. 455 (use of reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence to sustain convictions)