William Earl Tutson v. State, 530 S.W.3d 322

Victim (store assistant manager) was robbed at gunpoint; appellant took her purse and a bank bag containing cash and fled in a dark-colored Pontiac.
A witness/mechanic and store customers observed the incident; a customer ran outside to assist.
Officer Marshall heard the robbery dispatch describing a dark Pontiac, saw a matching car minutes later, followed it, and the car accelerated and fled; items (money) flew out during the pursuit.
The car spun out; both occupants fled on foot. Officer Marshall detained the driver; Officer Black located and presented appellant at the scene to Officer Marshall (a show-up), and Marshall identified appellant as the fleeing passenger.
Appellant moved to suppress the identification and challenged the legality of the traffic stop; the trial court denied suppression. At trial the complainant and mechanic testified that appellant had a gun, although police did not recover a weapon.
Appellant requested a jury charge on robbery (lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery); the court refused. Jury convicted; appellant sentenced to 30 years. Appeal followed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Pretrial show-up identification impermissibly suggestive	Show-up was suggestive because Officer Marshall likely knew appellant was caught and was asked to confirm, risking misidentification	Even if suggestive, indicia of reliability (good view, close in time, accurate description) outweigh corrupting effect	Denial of suppression affirmed — no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification
Traffic stop/temporary detention lacked reasonable suspicion	Officer Marshall had no observed violation and only a vague car description, so activating lights and stopping was unlawful	Officer had recent robbery dispatch with a matching vehicle nearby and the driver took evasive action, plus officers’ shared information supports reasonable suspicion	Denial of suppression affirmed — totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion
Denial of lesser-included offense instruction (robbery vs. aggravated robbery)	Testimony that the object looked like a gun and the absence of a recovered weapon create some evidence that no gun was used	Complainant and mechanic consistently testified appellant had a gun; mechanic’s “looked like a gun” remark is not affirmative evidence of no weapon	Denial affirmed — no affirmative evidence negating use of a gun; evidence did not raise robbery as a valid rational alternative

State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings and reasonable-suspicion framework)
Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (factors for assessing reliability of pretrial identification)
Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (two-step test for lesser-included-offense instruction)
Penaloza v. State, 349 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (lesser-included instruction standard and evidentiary sufficiency for aggravated robbery/robbery distinctions)
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (collective knowledge of cooperating officers may support reasonable suspicion)
Santos v. State, 116 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (analysis of suggestive pretrial identification and reliability balancing)