Williams v. State
2014 Ark. 253
Ark.2014Background
- On Dec. 28, 2011, Kelvin Shelton was shot and killed after parking near a Chrysler 300; his girlfriend, Torrece Graydon, fled and later reported the attack.
- Graydon testified that a man (later identified as Antonio L. Williams) climbed into the back seat, shoved her, put a gun to Shelton’s head, and demanded his property; she fled and heard gunshots.
- Police developed Antonio Williams and his brother Michael as suspects; Graydon identified Antonio from a photo array one week after the murder; the trial court later suppressed the photospread as unduly suggestive.
- Physical evidence tied the Chrysler 300 to the scene (matching taillight fragments); Williams’s wallet and a soda can with DNA including Williams were found in the car; jail calls suggested witness tampering and that Michael wasn’t present.
- A jury convicted Williams of capital murder; the State waived death, and Williams received life without parole plus a seven-year firearms enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in-court identification should be suppressed after court found photospread unduly suggestive | Photo array was unduly suggestive (only photo with facial scarring and knit cap) and tainted any subsequent in-court ID | Even if photospread was suggestive, in-court ID is admissible if independent indicia of reliability exist | Court upheld in-court ID: reliability factors (viewing conditions, description, certainty, timing) showed no substantial likelihood of misidentification |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing remark warranted mistrial (comment implying absence of exculpatory jail calls) | Comments were improper and prejudicial; mistrial required | Court can cure improper remark by sustaining objection and admonition; no manifest prejudice shown | Denial of mistrial affirmed: court sustained objection and admonished jury, which cured any prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. State, 357 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. 2009) (due-process test for suggestive identification procedures)
- Fields v. State, 76 S.W.3d 868 (Ark. 2002) (identification procedure may violate due process when suggestive)
- Tester v. State, 30 S.W.3d 99 (Ark. 2000) (in-court ID admissible if independent indicia of reliability exist)
- Burnett v. State, 790 S.W.2d 137 (Ark. 1990) (reliability governs admissibility of witness ID)
- Mezquita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 161 (Ark. 2003) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
- Mills v. State, 910 S.W.2d 682 (Ark. 1995) (totality-of-circumstances analysis for ID reliability)
- Milholland v. State, 893 S.W.2d 327 (Ark. 1995) (trial court’s role in assessing ID reliability)
- Bishop v. State, 839 S.W.2d 6 (Ark. 1992) (jury determines weight of identification evidence)
- Chenowith v. State, 905 S.W.2d 838 (Ark. 1995) (court will not disturb ID ruling absent very substantial likelihood of misidentification)